Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: The current paradigm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention. Although the derivation and validation of multivariable risk assessment tools, or CVD risk scores, have attracted considerable attention, their effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of evaluating and providing CVD risk scores in adults without prevalent CVD on cardiovascular outcomes, risk factor levels, preventive medication prescribing, and health behaviours. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March week 1 2016), Embase (embase.com) (1974 to 15 March 2016), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to 15 March 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We searched clinical trial registers in March 2016 and handsearched reference lists of primary studies to identify additional reports. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing the systematic provision of CVD risk scores by a clinician, healthcare professional, or healthcare system compared with usual care (i.e. no systematic provision of CVD risk scores) in adults without CVD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated study quality. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study limitations. The primary outcomes were: CVD events, change in CVD risk factor levels (total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and multivariable CVD risk), and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medication prescribing in higher-risk people. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data using 95% confidence intervals. We used a fixed-effects model when heterogeneity (I²) was at least 50% and a random-effects model for substantial heterogeneity (I² > 50%). We evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE framework. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 41 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 194,035 participants from 6422 reports. We assessed studies as having high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains. Low-quality evidence evidence suggests that providing CVD risk scores may have little or no effect on CVD events compared with usual care (5.4% versus 5.3%; RR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.08; I² = 25%; 3 trials, N = 99,070). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce CVD risk factor levels by a small amount compared with usual care. Providing CVD risk scores reduced total cholesterol (MD -0.10 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.00; I² = 94%; 12 trials, N = 20,437, low-quality evidence), systolic blood pressure (MD -2.77 mmHg, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.38; I² = 93%; 16 trials, N = 32,954, low-quality evidence), and multivariable CVD risk (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.02; I² = 94%; 9 trials, N = 9549, low-quality evidence). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce adverse events compared with usual care, but results were imprecise (1.9% versus 2.7%; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.04; I² = 0%; 4 trials, N = 4630, low-quality evidence). Compared with usual care, providing CVD risk scores may increase new or intensified lipid-lowering medications (15.7% versus 10.7%; RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.87; I² = 40%; 11 trials, N = 14,175, low-quality evidence) and increase new or increased antihypertensive medications (17.2% versus 11.4%; RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.11; I² = 53%; 8 trials, N = 13,255, low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is uncertainty whether current strategies for providing CVD risk scores affect CVD events. Providing CVD risk scores may slightly reduce CVD risk factor levels and may increase preventive medication prescribing in higher-risk people without evidence of harm. There were multiple study limitations in the identified studies and substantial heterogeneity in the interventions, outcomes, and analyses, so readers should interpret results with caution. New models for implementing and evaluating CVD risk scores in adequately powered studies are needed to define the role of applying CVD risk scores in primary CVD prevention

Use of behavioral economics and social psychology to improve treatment of acute respiratory infections (BEARI): rationale and design of a cluster randomized controlled trial [1RC4AG039115-01] - study protocol and baseline practice and provider characteristics

Background: Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for nonbacterial infections leads to increases in the costs of care, antibiotic resistance among bacteria, and adverse drug events. Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are the most common reason for inappropriate antibiotic use. Most prior efforts to decrease inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARIs (e.g., educational or informational interventions) have relied on the implicit assumption that clinicians inappropriately prescribe antibiotics because they are unaware of guideline recommendations for ARIs. If lack of guideline awareness is not the reason for inappropriate prescribing, educational interventions may have limited impact on prescribing rates. Instead, interventions that apply social psychological and behavioral economic principles may be more effective in deterring inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARIs by well-informed clinicians. Methods/design The Application of Behavioral Economics to Improve the Treatment of Acute Respiratory Infections (BEARI) Trial is a multisite, cluster-randomized controlled trial with practice as the unit of randomization. The primary aim is to test the ability of three interventions based on behavioral economic principles to reduce the rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARIs. We randomized practices in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design to receive up to three interventions for non-antibiotic-appropriate diagnoses: 1) Accountable Justifications: When prescribing an antibiotic for an ARI, clinicians are prompted to record an explicit justification that appears in the patient electronic health record; 2) Suggested Alternatives: Through computerized clinical decision support, clinicians prescribing an antibiotic for an ARI receive a list of non-antibiotic treatment choices (including prescription options) prior to completing the antibiotic prescription; and 3) Peer Comparison: Each provider’s rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing relative to top-performing peers is reported back to the provider periodically by email. We enrolled 269 clinicians (practicing attending physicians or advanced practice nurses) in 49 participating clinic sites and collected baseline data. The primary outcome is the antibiotic prescribing rate for office visits with non-antibiotic-appropriate ARI diagnoses. Secondary outcomes will examine antibiotic prescribing more broadly. The 18-month intervention period will be followed by a one year follow-up period to measure persistence of effects after interventions cease. Discussion The ongoing BEARI Trial will evaluate the effectiveness of behavioral economic strategies in reducing inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics. Trials registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0145494

ACC/AHA/SCAI/AMA–Convened PCPI/NCQA 2013 Performance Measures for Adults Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Medical Association–Convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement, and the National Committee for Quality Assurance

Journal of the American College of Cardiology Ó 2014 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, Inc., American Medical Association, and National Committee for Quality Assurance Published by Elsevier Inc. Vol. 63, No. 7, 2014 ISSN 0735-1097/$36.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.12.003 PERFORMANCE MEASURES ACC/AHA/SCAI/AMA–Convened PCPI/NCQA 2013 Performance Measures for Adults Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Medical Association–Convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement, and the National Committee for Quality Assurance Developed in Collaboration With the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and Mended Hearts Endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and Mended Hearts WRITING COMMITTEE MEMBERS Brahmajee K. Nallamothu, MD, MPH, FACC, FAHA, Co-Chair*; Carl L. Tommaso, MD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAI, Co-Chairy; H. Vernon Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAI*; Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, MACP*; Joseph C. Cleveland, J R , MDz; R. Adams Dudley, MD, MBA; Peter Louis Duffy, MD, MMM, FACC, FSCAIy; David P. Faxon, MD, FACC, FAHA*; Hitinder S. Gurm, MD, FACC; Lawrence A. Hamilton, Neil C. Jensen, MHA, MBA; Richard A. Josephson, MD, MS, FACC, FAHA, FAACVPRx; David J. Malenka, MD, FACC, FAHA*; Calin V. Maniu, MD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAIy; Kevin W. McCabe, MD; James D. Mortimer, Manesh R. Patel, MD, FACC*; Stephen D. Persell, MD, MPH; John S. Rumsfeld, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHAjj; Kendrick A. Shunk, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAI*; Sidney C. Smith, J R , MD, FACC, FAHA, FACP{; Stephen J. Stanko, MBA, BA, AA#; Brook Watts, MD, MS *ACC/AHA Representative. ySociety of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Representative. zSociety of Thoracic Surgeons Representative. xAmerican Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation Representative. kACC/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures Liaison. {National Heart Lung and Blood Institute Representative. #Mended Hearts Representative. The measure specifications were approved by the American College of Cardiology Board of Trustees, American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee, in January 2013 and the American Medical Association–Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement in February 2013. This document was approved by the American College of Cardiology Board of Trustees and the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee in October 2013, and the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions in December 2013. The American College of Cardiology requests that this document be cited as follows: Nallamothu BK, Tommaso CL, Anderson HV, Anderson JL, Cleveland JC, Dudley RA, Duffy PL, Faxon DP, Gurm HS, Hamilton LA, Jensen NC, Josephson RA, Malenka DJ, Maniu CV, McCabe KW, Mortimer JD, Patel MR, Persell SD, Rumsfeld JS, Shunk KA, Smith SC, Stanko SJ, Watts B. ACC/AHA/SCAI/AMA–Convened PCPI/NCQA 2013 perfor- mance measures for adults undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Medical Association–Convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement, and the National Committee for Quality Assurance. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:722–45. This article has been copublished in Circulation. Copies: This document is available on the World Wide Web sites of the American College of Cardiology (www.cardiosource.org) and the American Heart Asso- ciation (http://my.americanheart.org). For copies of this document, please contact Elsevier Inc. Reprint Department, fax (212) 633-3820, e-mail [email protected]. Permissions: Multiple copies, modification, alteration, enhancement, and/or distribution of this document are not permitted without the express permission of the American College of Cardiology. Requests may be completed online via the Elsevier site (http://www.elsevier.com/authors/obtaining- permission-to-re-use-elsevier-material). This Physician Performance Measurement Set (PPMS) and related data specifications were developed by the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement (the Consortium), including the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the American Medical Association (AMA), to facilitate quality-improvement activities by physicians. The performance measures contained in this PPMS are not clinical guidelines, do not establish a standard of medical care, and have not been tested for all potential applications. Although copyrighted, they can be reproduced and distributed, without modification, for noncommercial purposesdfor example, use by health care pro

Behavioral interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing: a randomized pilot trial

Background: Clinicians frequently prescribe antibiotics inappropriately for acute respiratory infections (ARIs). Our objective was to test information technology-enabled behavioral interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in a randomized controlled pilot test trial. Methods: Primary care clinicians were randomized in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial experiment with 3 interventions: 1) Accountable Justifications; 2) Suggested Alternatives; and 3) Peer Comparison. Beforehand, participants completed an educational module. Measures included: rates of antibiotic prescribing for: non-antibiotic-appropriate ARI diagnoses, acute sinusitis/pharyngitis, all other diagnoses/symptoms of respiratory infection, and all three ARI categories combined. Results: We examined 3,276 visits in the pre-intervention year and 3,099 in the intervention year. The antibiotic prescribing rate fell for non-antibiotic-appropriate ARIs (24.7 % in the pre-intervention year to 5.2 % in the intervention year); sinusitis/pharyngitis (50.3 to 44.7 %); all other diagnoses/symptoms of respiratory infection (40.2 to 25.3 %); and all categories combined (38.7 to 24.2 %; all p < 0.001). There were no significant relationships between any intervention and antibiotic prescribing for non-antibiotic-appropriate ARI diagnoses or sinusitis/pharyngitis. Suggested Alternatives was associated with reduced antibiotic prescribing for other diagnoses or symptoms of respiratory infection (odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.44–0.89) and for all ARI categories combined (OR, 0.72; 95 % CI, 0.54–0.96). Peer Comparison was associated with reduced prescribing for all ARI categories combined (OR, 0.73; 95 % CI, 0.53–0.995). Conclusions: We observed large reductions in antibiotic prescribing regardless of whether or not study participants received an intervention, suggesting an overriding Hawthorne effect or possibly clinician-to-clinician contamination. Low baseline inappropriate prescribing may have led to floor effects. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01454960. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-016-1715-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Assessing the validity of national quality measures for coronary artery disease using an electronic health record

Background Nationally endorsed, clinical performance measures are available that allow for quality reporting using electronic health records (EHRs). To our knowledge, how well they reflect actual quality of care has not been studied. We sought to evaluate the validity of performance measures for coronary artery disease (CAD) using an ambulatory EHR. Methods We performed a retrospective electronic medical chart review comparing automated measurement with a 2-step process of automated measurement supplemented by review of free-text notes for apparent quality failures for all patients with CAD from a large internal medicine practice using a commercial EHR. The 7 performance measures included the following: antiplatelet drug, lipid-lowering drug, -blocker following myocardial infarction, blood pressure measurement, lipid measurement, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker for patients with diabetes mellitus or left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Results Performance varied from 81.6% for lipid measurement to 97.6% for blood pressure measurement based on automated measurement. A review of free-text notes for cases failing an automated measure revealed that misclassification was common and that 15% to 81% of apparent quality failures either satisfied the performance measure or met valid exclusion criteria. After including free-text data, the adherence rate ranged from 87.5% for lipid measurement and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control to 99.2% for blood pressure measurement. Conclusions Profiling the quality of outpatient CAD care using data from an EHR has significant limitations. Changes in how data are routinely recorded in an EHR are needed to improve the accuracy of this type of quality measurement. Validity testing in different settings is required

Implications of Changing National Cholesterol Education Program Goals for the Treatment and Control of Hypercholesterolemia

BACKGROUND: Modifications to the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines lowered optional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment goals. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the implications of widely adopting these optional goals in clinical practice. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a cross-sectional study using 1999 to 2002 data from 3,281 U.S. adults aged 20 to 79 years participating the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcomes were the proportions of adults whose fasting LDL-C levels exceeded NCEP recommended and optional targets from 2001 and 2004. We used survey weights to estimate the size of the U.S. population exceeding targets. We examined outcomes for 4 coronary disease risk subgroups described by the NCEP. RESULTS: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values exceeded 2001 NCEP goals for 30.0% of adults, and 35.8% had levels above optional 2004 goals. An estimated 24,900,000 individuals (14.2%) exceeded 2001 thresholds for drug therapy, 46,200,000 (26.3%) exceeded optional 2001 thresholds for drug therapy, and 56,500,000 (32.2%) were above the optional 2004 thresholds for drug therapy. For lower, moderate, moderately high, and high-risk groups, 13.4%, 44.2%, 58.8%, and 71.8%, respectively, exceeded 2001 NCEP goals; 13.4%, 15.7%, 87.4%, and 96.0% of these groups exceeded optional 2004 thresholds for drug therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In 1999 to 2002, LDL-C levels commonly exceeded 2001 NCEP goals, especially for moderately high and high-risk individuals, and cholesterol-lowering medications were underused. Optional goals promulgated by the NCEP in 2001 and 2004 moderately increased the number of adults with LDL-C above their goal, and greatly increased the number of low, moderately high, and high-risk adults who exceeded LDL-C thresholds, for cholesterol-lowering medication

Point-of-care testing to promote cardiovascular disease risk assessment: A proof of concept study

Updated cholesterol guidelines emphasize multivariable cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation to guide treatment decision-making in primary prevention. This study tested the preliminary feasibility, acceptability and efficacy of point-of-care testing (POCT) and quantitative CVD risk assessment in high-risk adults to increase guideline-recommended statin use in primary prevention. Participants were aged 40–75 years, without CVD or diabetes mellitus, and potentially-eligible for consideration of statins based on estimated 10-year CVD risk from last-measured risk factor levels in the electronic health record. We performed POCT to facilitate quantitative CVD risk assessment with the Pooled Cohort Equations immediately before a scheduled primary care provider (PCP) visit. Outcomes were: physician documentation of a CVD risk discussion and statin prescription on the study date. We also assessed acceptability of the intervention through structured questionnaire. We recruited 18 participants (8 from an academic practice and 10 from a federally-qualified health clinic). After the intervention, 83% of participants discussed CVD risk with their PCP, 47% received a statin recommendation from their PCP, and 29% received a new statin prescription during the PCP visit. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with the intervention. This study demonstrates that in initial testing pre-visit POCT and quantitative CVD risk assessment appears to be a feasible and acceptable intervention that may promote guideline-recommended statin initiation in primary prevention. Future research with an adequately powered trial is warranted to determine the effectiveness of this approach in clinical practice