2009 Focused Update Incorporated Into the ACC/AHA 2005 Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure in Adults A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Developed in Collaboration With the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation

Heart failure (HF) is a major and growing public health problem in the United States. Approximately 5 million patients in this country have HF, and over 550,000 patients are diagnosed with HF for the first time each year. The disorder is the primary reason for 12 to 15 million office visits and 6.5 million hospital days each year. From 1990 to 1999, the annual number of hospitalizations has increased from approximately 810,000 to over 1 million for HF as a primary diagnosis and from 2.4 to 3.6 million for HF as a primary or secondary diagnosis. In 2001, nearly 53 000 patients died of HF as a primary cause. The number of HF deaths has increased steadily despite advances in treatment, in part because of increasing numbers of patients with HF due to better treatment and “salvage” of patients with acute myocardial infarctions (MIs) earlier in life. Heart failure is primarily a condition of the elderly, and thus the widely recognized “aging of the population” also contributes to the increasing incidence of HF. The incidence of HF approaches 10 per 1000 population after age 65, and approximately 80% of patients hospitalized with HF are more than 65 years old. Heart failure is the most common Medicare diagnosis-related group (i.e., hospital discharge diagnosis), and more Medicare dollars are spent for the diagnosis and treatment of HF than for any other diagnosis. The total estimated direct and indirect costs for HF in 2005 were approximately $27.9 billion. In the United States, approximately$2.9 billion annually is spent on drugs for the treatment of HF

Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses : second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine

Importance  Since publication of the report by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine in 1996, researchers have advanced the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis, and policy makers have experimented with its application. The need to deliver health care efficiently and the importance of using analytic techniques to understand the clinical and economic consequences of strategies to improve health have increased in recent years.Objective  To review the state of the field and provide recommendations to improve the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses. The intended audiences include researchers, government policy makers, public health officials, health care administrators, payers, businesses, clinicians, patients, and consumers.Design  In 2012, the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine was formed and included 2 co-chairs, 13 members, and 3 additional members of a leadership group. These members were selected on the basis of their experience in the field to provide broad expertise in the design, conduct, and use of cost-effectiveness analyses. Over the next 3.5 years, the panel developed recommendations by consensus. These recommendations were then reviewed by invited external reviewers and through a public posting process.Findings  The concept of a “reference case” and a set of standard methodological practices that all cost-effectiveness analyses should follow to improve quality and comparability are recommended. All cost-effectiveness analyses should report 2 reference case analyses: one based on a health care sector perspective and another based on a societal perspective. The use of an “impact inventory,” which is a structured table that contains consequences (both inside and outside the formal health care sector), intended to clarify the scope and boundaries of the 2 reference case analyses is also recommended. This special communication reviews these recommendations and others concerning the estimation of the consequences of interventions, the valuation of health outcomes, and the reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses.Conclusions and Relevance  The Second Panel reviewed the current status of the field of cost-effectiveness analysis and developed a new set of recommendations. Major changes include the recommendation to perform analyses from 2 reference case perspectives and to provide an impact inventory to clarify included consequences

Improving Fecal Occult Blood Testing Compliance Using a Mailed Educational Reminder

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Randomized controlled trials have shown that annual screening fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) reduces CRC mortality and incidence. However, patient compliance with FOBT is low. To determine whether a mailed educational reminder increases FOBT card return rates and to examine predictors of FOBT compliance. Blinded, randomized, controlled trial at the Veteran Affairs Medical Center, San Diego, California. Seven hundred and seventy-five consecutive patients ≥50 years of age referred by their primary care physicians for FOBT. Patients were randomly assigned to the usual care group or the intervention group. Ten days after picking up the FOBT cards, a 1-page reminder with information related to CRC screening was mailed to the intervention group only. The primary outcome was proportion of returned FOBT cards after 6 months. Patient demographic, clinical characteristics and prior FOBT completed were collected for multivariate regression analysis. At 6 months after card distribution, 64.6% of patients in the intervention group returned cards compared with 48.4% in the control group (P < 0.001). Patients who received a mailed reminder (OR 2.02; 95% CI: 1.48–2.74) or have a prior history of returning the FOBT cards (OR 1.87; 95% CI: 1.29–2.70) were more likely to return the FOBT cards. Patients with current or recent illicit drug use were less likely to return the FOBT cards (OR 0.26; 95% CI: 0.13–0.50). A simple mailed educational reminder significantly increases compliance with FOBT for CRC screening

Cost-effectiveness of a mailed educational reminder to increase colorectal cancer screening

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are low in many areas and cost-effective interventions to promote CRC screening are needed. Recently in a randomized controlled trial, a mailed educational reminder increased CRC screening rates by 16.2% among U.S. Veterans. The aim of our study was to assess the costs and cost-effectiveness of a mailed educational reminder on fecal occult blood test (FOBT) adherence.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a blinded, randomized, controlled trial, 769 patients were randomly assigned to the usual care group (FOBT alone, n = 382) or the intervention group (FOBT plus a mailed reminder, n = 387). Ten days after picking up the FOBT cards, a 1-page reminder with information related to CRC screening was mailed to the intervention group. Primary outcome was number of returned FOBT cards after 6 months. The costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the intervention were assessed and calculated respectively. Sensitivity analyses were based on varying costs of labor and supplies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>At 6 months after card distribution, 64.6% patients in the intervention group returned FOBT cards compared with 48.4% in the control group (P < 0.001). The total cost of the intervention was $962 or$2.49 per patient, and the ICER was $15 per additional person screened for CRC. Sensitivity analysis based on a 10$13.50 to $16.50 per additional patient screened for CRC.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A simple mailed educational reminder increases FOBT card return rate at a cost many health care systems can afford. Compared to other patient-directed interventions (telephone, letters from physicians, mailed reminders) for CRC screening, our intervention was more effective and cost-effective.</p

Dealing with heterogeneity of treatment effects: is the literature up to the challenge?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Some patients will experience more or less benefit from treatment than the averages reported from clinical trials; such variation in therapeutic outcome is termed heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE). Identifying HTE is necessary to individualize treatment. The degree to which heterogeneity is sought and analyzed correctly in the general medical literature is unknown. We undertook this literature sample to track the use of HTE analyses over time, examine the appropriateness of the statistical methods used, and explore the predictors of such analyses.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Articles were selected through a probability sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in <it>Annals of Internal Medicine</it>, <it>BMJ</it>, <it>JAMA</it>, <it>The Lancet</it>, and <it>NEJM </it>during odd numbered months of 1994, 1999, and 2004. RCTs were independently reviewed and coded by two abstractors, with adjudication by a third. Studies were classified as reporting: (1) HTE analysis, utilizing a formal test for heterogeneity or treatment-by-covariate interaction, (2) subgroup analysis only, involving no formal test for heterogeneity or interaction; or (3) neither. Chi-square tests and multiple logistic regression were used to identify variables associated with HTE reporting.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>319 studies were included. Ninety-two (29%) reported HTE analysis; another 88 (28%) reported subgroup analysis only, without examining HTE formally. Major covariates examined included individual risk factors associated with prognosis, responsiveness to treatment, or vulnerability to adverse effects of treatment (56%); gender (30%); age (29%); study site or center (29%); and race/ethnicity (7%). Journal of publication and sample size were significant independent predictors of HTE analysis (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001, respectively).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>HTE is frequently ignored or incorrectly analyzed. An iterative process of exploratory analysis followed by confirmatory HTE analysis will generate the data needed to facilitate an individualized approach to evidence-based medicine.</p

ACC/AHA guidelines for the evaluation and management of chronic heart failure in the adult: Executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure)

"Heart failure (HF) is a major public health problem in the United States. Nearly 5 million patients in this country have HF, and nearly 500,000 patients are diagnosed with HF for the first time each year. The disorder is the underlying reason for 12 to 15 million office visits and 6.5 million hospital days each year (1). During the last 10 years, the annual number of hospitalizations has increased from approximately 550,000 to nearly 900,000 for HF as a primary diagnosis and from 1.7 to 2.6 million for HF as a primary or secondary diagnosis (2). Nearly 300,000 patients die of HF as a primary or contributory cause each year, and the number of deaths has increased steadily despite advances in treatment. HF is primarily a disease of the elderly (3). Approximately 6% to 10% of people older than 65 years have HF (4), and approximately 80% of patients hospitalized with HF are more than 65 years old (2). HF is the most common Medicare diagnosis-related group, and more Medicare dollars are spent for the diagnosis and treatment of HF than for any other diagnosis (5). The total inpatient and outpatient costs for HF in 1991 were approximately $38.1 billion, which was approximately 5.4$500 million annually is spent on drugs for the treatment of HF. The American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) first published guidelines for the evaluation and management of HF in 1995 (6). Since that time, a great deal of progress has been made in the development of both pharmacological and nonpharmacological approaches to treatment for this common, costly, disabling, and generally fatal disorder. For this reason, the 2 organizations believed that the time was right to reassess and update these guidelines, fully recognizing that the optimal therapy of HF remains a work in progress and that future guidelines will supersede these.

2009 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2005 guidelines for the diagnosis and management of heart failure in adults: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines: Developed in collaboration with the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation

Heart failure (HF) is a major and growing public health problem in the United States. Approximately 5 million patients in this country have HF, and over 550,000 patients are diagnosed with HF for the first time each year. The disorder is the primary reason for 12 to 15 million office visits and 6.5 million hospital days each year. From 1990 to 1999, the annual number of hospitalizations has increased from approximately 810,000 to over 1 million for HF as a primary diagnosis and from 2.4 to 3.6 million for HF as a primary or secondary diagnosis. In 2001, nearly 53 000 patients died of HF as a primary cause. The number of HF deaths has increased steadily despite advances in treatment, in part because of increasing numbers of patients with HF due to better treatment and “salvage” of patients with acute myocardial infarctions (MIs) earlier in life. Heart failure is primarily a condition of the elderly, and thus the widely recognized “aging of the population” also contributes to the increasing incidence of HF. The incidence of HF approaches 10 per 1000 population after age 65, and approximately 80% of patients hospitalized with HF are more than 65 years old. Heart failure is the most common Medicare diagnosis-related group (i.e., hospital discharge diagnosis), and more Medicare dollars are spent for the diagnosis and treatment of HF than for any other diagnosis. The total estimated direct and indirect costs for HF in 2005 were approximately $27.9 billion. In the United States, approximately$2.9 billion annually is spent on drugs for the treatment of HF

ACC/AHA 2005 Guideline Update for the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Heart Failure in the Adult: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure)

"The committee elected to focus this document on the prevention of HF and on the diagnosis and management of chronic HF in the adult patient with normal or low LVEF. It specifically did not consider acute HF, which might merit a separate set of guidelines and is addressed in part in the ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (8) and the ACC/AHA 2003 Update of the Guidelines for the Management of Unstable Angina and Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (9). We have also excluded HF in children, both because the underlying causes of HF in children differ from those in adults and because none of the controlled trials of treatments for HF have included children. We have not considered the management of HF due to primary valvular disease [see ACC/AHA Guidelines on the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease (10)] or congenital malformations, and we have not included recommendations for the treatment of specific myocardial disorders (e.g., hemochromatosis, sarcoidosis, or amyloidosis). These practice guidelines are intended to assist healthcare providers in clinical decision making by describing a range of generally acceptable approaches for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of HF. The guidelines attempt to define practices that meet the needs of most patients under most circumstances. However, the ultimate judgment regarding the care of a particular patient must be made by the healthcare provider in light of all of the circumstances that are relevant to that patient. These guidelines do not address cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective. The guidelines are not meant to assist policy makers faced with the necessity to make decisions regarding the allocation of finite healthcare resources. In fact, these guidelines assume no resource limitation. They do not provide policy makers with sufficient information to be able to choose wisely between options for resource allocation. The various therapeutic strategies described in this document can be viewed as a checklist to be considered for each patient in an attempt to individualize treatment for an evolving disease process. Every patient is unique, not only in terms of his or her cause and course of HF, but also in terms of his or her personal and cultural approach to the disease. Guidelines can only provide an outline for evidence-based decisions or recommendations for individual care; these guidelines are meant to provide that outline.

ACC/AHA 2005 Guideline Update for the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Heart Failure in the Adult: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure)

"The committee elected to focus this document on the prevention of HF and on the diagnosis and management of chronic HF in the adult patient with normal or low LVEF. It specifically did not consider acute HF, which might merit a separate set of guidelines and is addressed in part in the ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (8) and the ACC/AHA 2003 Update of the Guidelines for the Management of Unstable Angina and Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (9). We have also excluded HF in children, both because the underlying causes of HF in children differ from those in adults and because none of the controlled trials of treatments for HF have included children. We have not considered the management of HF due to primary valvular disease [see ACC/AHA Guidelines on the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease (10)] or congenital malformations, and we have not included recommendations for the treatment of specific myocardial disorders (e.g., hemochromatosis, sarcoidosis, or amyloidosis). These practice guidelines are intended to assist healthcare providers in clinical decision making by describing a range of generally acceptable approaches for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of HF. The guidelines attempt to define practices that meet the needs of most patients under most circumstances. However, the ultimate judgment regarding the care of a particular patient must be made by the healthcare provider in light of all of the circumstances that are relevant to that patient. These guidelines do not address cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective. The guidelines are not meant to assist policy makers faced with the necessity to make decisions regarding the allocation of finite healthcare resources. In fact, these guidelines assume no resource limitation. They do not provide policy makers with sufficient information to be able to choose wisely between options for resource allocation. The various therapeutic strategies described in this document can be viewed as a checklist to be considered for each patient in an attempt to individualize treatment for an evolving disease process. Every patient is unique, not only in terms of his or her cause and course of HF, but also in terms of his or her personal and cultural approach to the disease. Guidelines can only provide an outline for evidence-based decisions or recommendations for individual care; these guidelines are meant to provide that outline.