Use of global coronary heart disease risk assessment in practice: a cross-sectional survey of a sample of U.S. physicians

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Global coronary heart disease (CHD) risk assessment is recommended to guide primary preventive pharmacotherapy. However, little is known about physicians' understanding and use of global CHD risk assessment. Our objective was to examine US physicians' awareness, use, and attitudes regarding global CHD risk assessment in clinical practice, and how these vary by provider specialty.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using a web-based survey of US family physicians, general internists, and cardiologists, we examined awareness of tools available to calculate CHD risk, method and use of CHD risk assessment, attitudes towards CHD risk assessment, and frequency of using CHD risk assessment to guide recommendations of aspirin, lipid-lowering and blood pressure (BP) lowering therapies for primary prevention. Characteristics of physicians indicating they use CHD risk assessments were compared in unadjusted and adjusted analyses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 952 physicians completed the questionnaire, with 92% reporting awareness of tools available to calculate CHD global risk. Among those aware of such tools, over 80% agreed that CHD risk calculation is useful, improves patient care, and leads to better decisions about recommending preventive therapies. However, only 41% use CHD risk assessment in practice. The most commonly reported barrier to CHD risk assessment is that it is too time consuming. Among respondents who calculate global CHD risk, 69% indicated they use it to guide lipid lowering therapy recommendations; 54% use it to guide aspirin therapy recommendations; and 48% use it to guide BP lowering therapy. Only 40% of respondents who use global CHD risk routinely tell patients their risk. Use of a personal digital assistant or smart phone was associated with reported use of CHD risk assessment (adjusted OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.17-2.12).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Reported awareness of tools to calculate global CHD risk appears high, but the majority of physicians in this sample do not use CHD risk assessments in practice. A minority of physicians in this sample use global CHD risk to guide prescription decisions or to motivate patients. Educational interventions and system improvements to improve physicians' effective use of global CHD risk assessment should be developed and tested.</p

Methods to identify the target population: implications for prescribing quality indicators

Background: Information on prescribing quality is increasingly used by policy makers, insurance companies and health care providers. For reliable assessment of prescribing quality it is important to correctly identify the patients eligible for recommended treatment. Often either diagnostic codes or clinical measurements are used to identify such patients. We compared these two approaches regarding the outcome of the prescribing quality assessment and their ability to identify treated and undertreated patients. Methods: The approaches were compared using electronic health records for 3214 diabetes patients from 70 general practitioners. We selected three existing prescribing quality indicators (PQI) assessing different aspects of treatment in patients with hypertension or who were overweight. We compared population level prescribing quality scores and proportions of identified patients using definitions of hypertension or being overweight based on diagnostic codes, clinical measurements or both. Results: The prescribing quality score for prescribing any antihypertensive treatment was 93% (95% confidence interval 90-95%) using the diagnostic code-based approach, and 81% (78-83%) using the measurement-based approach. Patients receiving antihypertensive treatment had a better registration of their diagnosis compared to hypertensive patients in whom such treatment was not initiated. Scores on the other two PQI were similar for the different approaches, ranging from 64 to 66%. For all PQI, the clinical measurement -based approach identified higher proportions of both well treated and undertreated patients compared to the diagnostic code -based approach. Conclusions: The use of clinical measurements is recommended when PQI are used to identify undertreated patients. Using diagnostic codes or clinical measurement values has little impact on the outcomes of proportion-based PQI when both numerator and denominator are equally affected. In situations when a diagnosis is better registered for treated than untreated patients, as we observed for hypertension, the diagnostic code-based approach results in overestimation of provided treatment

A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study to Evaluate the Effect of Calcium Fructoborate on Systemic Inflammation and Dyslipidemia Markers for Middle-Aged People with Primary Osteoarthritis

The objective of this pilot study was to determine whether 15 days of dietary supplementation with calcium fructoborate could acutely modulate inflammatory and lipid blood markers in individuals diagnosed with primary osteoarthritis. During 2 weeks, a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind study was conducted on 116 subjects that were initially recruited. Seventy-two subjects started the study, being divided into four groups, and only 60 completed the study as designed. The aim was to compare the effects of calcium fructoborate to placebo on subjects diagnosed with knee primary osteoarthritis. The obtained outcomes were inflammation biomarkers (C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate) and lipid markers (triglycerides, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol). No serious adverse events were reported. The calcium fructoborate showed beneficial effect on the inflammatory markers for all groups subjected to the treatment when compared with the placebo group and slight changes in the lipid metabolism. This study suggests that short-term (2 weeks) calcium fructoborate supplementation in patients with osteoarthritis symptoms has a favorable prognosis on inflammation diseases

A Retrospective Cohort Study of the Potency of lipid-lowering therapy and Race-gender Differences in LDL cholesterol control

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Reasons for race and gender differences in controlling elevated low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol may be related to variations in prescribed lipid-lowering therapy. We examined the effect of lipid-lowering drug treatment and potency on time until LDL control for black and white women and men with a baseline elevated LDL.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We studied 3,484 older hypertensive patients with dyslipidemia in 6 primary care practices over a 4-year timeframe. Potency of lipid-lowering drugs calculated for each treated day and summed to assess total potency for at least 6 and up to 24 months. Cox models of time to LDL control within two years and logistic regression models of control within 6 months by race-gender adjust for: demographics, clinical, health care delivery, primary/specialty care, LDL measurement, and drug potency.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Time to LDL control decreased as lipid-lowering drug potency increased (P < 0.001). Black women (N = 1,440) received the highest potency therapy (P < 0.001) yet were less likely to achieve LDL control than white men (N = 717) (fully adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.66 [95% CI 0.56-0.78]). Black men (N = 666) and white women (N = 661) also had lower adjusted HRs of LDL control (0.82 [95% CI 0.69, 0.98] and 0.75 [95% CI 0.64-0.88], respectively) than white men. Logistic regression models of LDL control by 6 months and other sensitivity models affirmed these results.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Black women and, to a lesser extent, black men and white women were less likely to achieve LDL control than white men after accounting for lipid-lowering drug potency as well as diverse patient and provider factors. Future work should focus on the contributions of medication adherence and response to treatment to these clinically important differences.</p

Evaluation of emergency department performance:A systematic review on recommended performance and quality-in-care measures

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of emergency department (ED) performance remains a difficult task due to the lack of consensus on performance measures that reflects high quality, efficiency, and sustainability. AIM: To describe, map, and critically evaluate which performance measures that the published literature regard as being most relevant in assessing overall ED performance. METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature review of review articles reporting accentuated ED performance measures was conducted in the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Study eligibility criteria includes: 1) the main purpose was to discuss, analyse, or promote performance measures best reflecting ED performance, 2) the article was a review article, and 3) the article reported macro-level performance measures, thus reflecting an overall departmental performance level. RESULTS: A number of articles addresses this study’s objective (n = 14 of 46 unique hits). Time intervals and patient-related measures were dominant in the identified performance measures in review articles from US, UK, Sweden and Canada. Length of stay (LOS), time between patient arrival to initial clinical assessment, and time between patient arrivals to admission were highlighted by the majority of articles. Concurrently, “patients left without being seen” (LWBS), unplanned re-attendance within a maximum of 72 hours, mortality/morbidity, and number of unintended incidents were the most highlighted performance measures that related directly to the patient. Performance measures related to employees were only stated in two of the 14 included articles. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 55 ED performance measures were identified. ED time intervals were the most recommended performance measures followed by patient centeredness and safety performance measures. ED employee related performance measures were rarely mentioned in the investigated literature. The study’s results allow for advancement towards improved performance measurement and standardised assessment across EDs

Blood glucose testing and primary prevention of diabetes mellitus type 2 - evaluation of the effect of evidence based patient information

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Evidence-based patient information (EBPI) has been recognised as important tool for informed choice in particular in the matter of preventive options. An objective, on the best scientific evidence-based consumer information about subthreshold elevated blood glucose levels (impaired fasting glucose and impaired glucose tolerance) and primary prevention of diabetes, is not available yet. Thus we developed a web-based EBPI and aim to evaluate its effects on informed decision making in people 50 years or older.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>We conduct a web-based randomised-controlled trial to evaluate the effect of information about elevated blood glucose levels and diabetes primary prevention on five specific outcomes: (i) knowledge of elevated blood glucose level-related issues (primary outcome); (ii) attitudes to a metabolic testing; (iii) intention to undergo a metabolic testing; (iv) decision conflict; (v) satisfaction with the information. The intervention group receives a specially developed EBPI about subthreshold elevated blood glucose levels and diabetes primary prevention, the control group information about this topic, available in the internet.</p> <p>The study population consists of people between 50 and 69 years of age without known diabetes. Participants will be recruited via the internet page of the cooperating health insurance company, Techniker Krankenkasse (TK), and the internet page of the German Diabetes Centre. Outcomes will be measured through online questionnaires. We expect better informed participants in the intervention group.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The design of this study may be a prototype for other web-based prevention information and their evaluation.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trial: ISRCTN22060616.</p

Gender Differences in Aspirin use Among Adults With Coronary Heart Disease in the United States

BACKGROUND: Aspirin reduces mortality for men and women with coronary heart disease (CHD). Previous research suggests women with acute coronary syndromes receive less aggressive care, including less frequent early administration of aspirin. The presence of gender differences in aspirin use for secondary prevention is less clear. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a gender difference exists in the use of aspirin for secondary prevention among individuals with CHD. DESIGN: We analyzed data from the nationally representative 2000–2002 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys to determine the prevalence of regular aspirin use among men and women with CHD. PARTICIPANTS: Participants, 1,869, 40 years and older who reported CHD or prior myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Women were less likely than men to use aspirin regularly (62.4% vs 75.6%, p < .001) even after adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic and clinical characteristics (adjusted OR = 0.62, 95% CI, 0.48–0.79). This difference narrowed but remained significant when the analysis was limited to those without self-reported contraindications to aspirin (79.8% vs 86.4%, P = .002, adjusted OR = 0.68, 95% CI, 0.48–0.97). Women were more likely than men to report contraindications (20.5% vs 12.5%, P < .001). Differences in aspirin use were greater between women and men with private health insurance (61.8% vs 79.0%, P < .001, adjusted OR = 0.48, 95% CI, 0.35–0.67) than among those with public coverage (62.5% vs 70.7%, P = .04, adjusted OR = 0.74, 95% CI, 0.50–1.11) (P < .001 for gender–insurance interaction). CONCLUSION: We found a gender difference in aspirin use among patients with CHD not fully explained by differences in patient characteristics or reported contraindications. These findings suggest a need for improved secondary prevention of cardiovascular events for women with CHD