Sources of Variation in Physician Adherence with Clinical Guidelines: Results from a Factorial Experiment

BACKGROUND: Health services research has documented the magnitude of health care variations. Few studies focus on provider level sources of variation in clinical decision making-for example, which primary care providers are likely to follow clinical guidelines, with which types of patient. OBJECTIVES: To estimate: (1) the extent of primary care provider adherence to practice guidelines and the unconfounded influence of (2) patient attributes and (3) physician characteristics on adherence with clinical practice guidelines. DESIGN: In a factorial experiment, primary care providers were shown clinically authentic video vignettes with actors portrayed different “patients” with identical signs of coronary heart disease (CHD). Different types of providers were asked how they would manage the different “patients” with identical CHD symptoms. Measures were taken to protect external validity. RESULTS: Adherence to some guidelines is high (over 50% of physicians would follow a third of the recommended actions), yet there is low adherence to many of them (less than 20% would follow another third). Female patients are less likely than males to receive 4 of 5 types of physical examination (p < .03); older patients are less likely to be advised to stop smoking (p < .03). Race and SES of patients had no effect on provider adherence to guidelines. A physicians’ level of experience (age) appears to be important with certain patients. CONCLUSIONS: Physician adherence with guidelines varies with different types of “patient” and with the length of clinical experience. With this evidence it is possible to appropriately target interventions to reduce health care variations by improving physician adherence with clinical guidelines

Systematically missing confounders in individual participant data meta-analysis of observational cohort studies.

One difficulty in performing meta-analyses of observational cohort studies is that the availability of confounders may vary between cohorts, so that some cohorts provide fully adjusted analyses while others only provide partially adjusted analyses. Commonly, analyses of the association between an exposure and disease either are restricted to cohorts with full confounder information, or use all cohorts but do not fully adjust for confounding. We propose using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis model to use information from all available cohorts while still adjusting for all the potential confounders. Our method uses both the fully adjusted and the partially adjusted estimated effects in the cohorts with full confounder information, together with an estimate of their within-cohort correlation. The method is applied to estimate the association between fibrinogen level and coronary heart disease incidence using data from 154,012 participants in 31 cohort

Hospital mortality among major trauma victims admitted on weekends and evenings: a cohort study

Article deposited according to publisher policy posted on SHERPA/RoMEO, 14/09/2010.YesFunding provided by the Open Access Authors Fund

A Review of the Adverse Effects of Peripheral Alpha-1 Antagonists in Hypertension Therapy

BACKGROUND: Doxazosin and its role as an antihypertensive agent have come under recent scrutiny as a result of the early termination of that treatment arm in ALLHAT. It is unclear why the cardiovascular (CV) event rate in this randomized, controlled trial (RCT), especially heart failure, is higher in those treated with a doxazosin-based regimen than with a chlorthalidone based-regimen. There has been little work in the past to summarize information on peripheral alpha-1 antagonists that may be helpful in evaluating the results of this randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Using Medline and the Cochrane databases, we performed a comprehensive review of the literature on the use of peripheral alpha-1 antagonists as antihypertensive agents, focusing on available information that could explain the excess cardiovascular events observed in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). RESULTS: Minimal data were available concerning the effects of peripheral alpha-1 antagonists on CV endpoints. A multitude of short-term studies-ranging from small observational studies to short-term moderate-sized RCTs – focused on safety, efficacy, and tolerability, and some studies investigated the physiologic effects of these agents. These previously reported studies reveal associations with weight gain, fluid retention, and neurohormonal changes among various populations of those treated with peripheral alpha-1 antagonists. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest several possible mechanisms by which doxazosin may be inferior to low-dose diuretics as antihypertensive therapy for the prevention of heart failure

Erectile dysfunction and heart failure: the role of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors

The phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors are effective in treating erectile dysfunction (ED). ED and heart failure (HF) share similar risk factors, and commonly present together. This association has led to questions ranging from the safety and efficacy of PDE-5 inhibitors in HF patients to a possible role for this class of medication to treat HF patients with or without ED. In addition to endothelial dysfunction, there are causes of ED specific to patients with HF including low exercise tolerance, depression and HF medications. Before treating HF patients with PDE-5 inhibitors, patients should be assessed for their risk of a cardiac event during sexual activity. PDE-5 inhibitors are safe and effective in treating ED in HF patients. An improvement in erectile function by PDE-5 inhibitors was associated with an improvement in quality of life and reduction in depression. Several studies demonstrated the effect of PDE-5 inhibitors on HF per se. PDE-5 inhibitors improved endothelial dysfunction, increased exercise tolerance, decreased pulmonary vascular resistance and pulmonary artery pressure, and increased cardiac index. Several mechanisms whereby PDE-5 inhibitors improve HF have been proposed. PDE-5 inhibitors already have a role in treating primary pulmonary hypertension; however additional studies are needed to determine if they will become a standard therapy for HF patients

Pharmacological blood pressure lowering for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease across different levels of blood pressure: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis

Background: The effects of pharmacological blood pressure lowering at normal or high-normal blood pressure ranges in people with or without pre-existing cardiovascular disease remains uncertain. We analysed individual participant data from randomised trials to investigate the effects of blood pressure lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events by baseline levels of systolic blood pressure. Methods: We did a meta-analysis of individual participant-level data from 48 randomised trials of pharmacological blood pressure lowering medications versus placebo or other classes of blood pressure-lowering medications, or between more versus less intensive treatment regimens, which had at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each group. Trials exclusively done with participants with heart failure or short-term interventions in participants with acute myocardial infarction or other acute settings were excluded. Data from 51 studies published between 1972 and 2013 were obtained by the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (Oxford University, Oxford, UK). We pooled the data to investigate the stratified effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment in participants with and without prevalent cardiovascular disease (ie, any reports of stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischaemic heart disease before randomisation), overall and across seven systolic blood pressure categories (ranging from <120 to ≥170 mm Hg). The primary outcome was a major cardiovascular event (defined as a composite of fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction or ischaemic heart disease, or heart failure causing death or requiring admission to hospital), analysed as per intention to treat. Findings: Data for 344 716 participants from 48 randomised clinical trials were available for this analysis. Pre-randomisation mean systolic/diastolic blood pressures were 146/84 mm Hg in participants with previous cardiovascular disease (n=157 728) and 157/89 mm Hg in participants without previous cardiovascular disease (n=186 988). There was substantial spread in participants' blood pressure at baseline, with 31 239 (19·8%) of participants with previous cardiovascular disease and 14 928 (8·0%) of individuals without previous cardiovascular disease having a systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg. The relative effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment were proportional to the intensity of systolic blood pressure reduction. After a median 4·15 years' follow-up (Q1–Q3 2·97–4·96), 42 324 participants (12·3%) had at least one major cardiovascular event. In participants without previous cardiovascular disease at baseline, the incidence rate for developing a major cardiovascular event per 1000 person-years was 31·9 (95% CI 31·3–32·5) in the comparator group and 25·9 (25·4–26·4) in the intervention group. In participants with previous cardiovascular disease at baseline, the corresponding rates were 39·7 (95% CI 39·0–40·5) and 36·0 (95% CI 35·3–36·7), in the comparator and intervention groups, respectively. Hazard ratios (HR) associated with a reduction of systolic blood pressure by 5 mm Hg for a major cardiovascular event were 0·91, 95% CI 0·89–0·94 for partipants without previous cardiovascular disease and 0·89, 0·86–0·92, for those with previous cardiovascular disease. In stratified analyses, there was no reliable evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects on major cardiovascular events by baseline cardiovascular disease status or systolic blood pressure categories. Interpretation: In this large-scale analysis of randomised trials, a 5 mm Hg reduction of systolic blood pressure reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events by about 10%, irrespective of previous diagnoses of cardiovascular disease, and even at normal or high–normal blood pressure values. These findings suggest that a fixed degree of pharmacological blood pressure lowering is similarly effective for primary and secondary prevention of major cardiovascular disease, even at blood pressure levels currently not considered for treatment. Physicians communicating the indication for blood pressure lowering treatment to their patients should emphasise its importance on reducing cardiovascular risk rather than focusing on blood pressure reduction itself. Funding: British Heart Foundation, UK National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Martin School