Quality of Life in Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia Treated With Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: In the BEST-CLI trial (Best Endovascular Versus Best Surgical Therapy for Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia), a prespecified secondary objective was to assess the effects of revascularization strategy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia were randomized to surgical bypass (Bypass) or endovascular intervention (Endo) in 2 parallel trials. Cohort 1 included patients with single-segment great saphenous vein; cohort 2 included those lacking suitable single-segment great saphenous vein. HRQoL was assessed over the trial duration using Vascular Quality-of-Life (VascuQoL), European Quality-of-Life-5D (EQ-5D), the Short Form-12 (SF-12) Physical Component Summary (SF-12 PCS), SF-12 Mental Component Summary (SF-12 MCS), Utility Index Score (SF-6D R2), and numeric rating scales of pain. HRQoL was summarized by cohort and compared within and between groups using mixed-model linear regression. RESULTS: A total of 1193 and 335 patients in cohorts 1 and 2 with a mean follow-up of 2.9 and 2.0 years, respectively, were analyzed. In cohort 1, HRQoL significantly improved from baseline to follow-up for both groups across all measures. For example, mean (SD) VascuQoL scores were 3.0 (1.3) and 3.0 (1.2) for Bypass and Endo at baseline and 4.7 (1.4) and 4.8 (1.5) over follow-up. There were significant group differences favoring Endo when assessed with VascuQoL (difference, -0.14 [95% CI, -0.25 to -0.02]; P=0.02), SF-12 MCS (difference, -1.03 [95% CI, -1.89 to -0.18]; P=0.02), SF-6D R2 (difference, -0.01 [95% CI, -0.02 to -0.001]; P=0.03), numeric rating scale pain at present (difference, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.49]; P=0.03), usual level during previous week (difference, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.48]; P=0.02), and worst level during previous week (difference, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.56]; P=0.04). There was no difference between treatment arms on the basis of EQ-5D (difference, -0.01 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.004]; P=0.12) or SF-12 PCS (difference, -0.41 [95% CI, -1.2 to 0.37]; P=0.31). In cohort 2, HRQoL also significantly improved from baseline to the end of follow-up for both groups based on all measures, but there were no differences between Bypass and Endo on any measure. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia deemed eligible for either Bypass or Endo, revascularization resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL. In patients with an available single-segment great saphenous vein for bypass, but not among those without one, Endo was statistically superior on some HRQoL measures; however, these differences were below the threshold of clinically meaningful difference.

Surgery or Endovascular Therapy for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) require revascularization to improve limb perfusion and thereby limit the risk of amputation. It is uncertain whether an initial strategy of endovascular therapy or surgical revascularization for CLTI is superior for improving limb outcomes. METHODS: In this international, randomized trial, we enrolled 1830 patients with CLTI and infrainguinal peripheral artery disease in two parallel-cohort trials. Patients who had a single segment of great saphenous vein that could be used for surgery were assigned to cohort 1. Patients who needed an alternative bypass conduit were assigned to cohort 2. The primary outcome was a composite of a major adverse limb event - which was defined as amputation above the ankle or a major limb reintervention (a new bypass graft or graft revision, thrombectomy, or thrombolysis) - or death from any cause. RESULTS: In cohort 1, after a median follow-up of 2.7 years, a primary-outcome event occurred in 302 of 709 patients (42.6%) in the surgical group and in 408 of 711 patients (57.4%) in the endovascular group (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.79; P<0.001). In cohort 2, a primary-outcome event occurred in 83 of 194 patients (42.8%) in the surgical group and in 95 of 199 patients (47.7%) in the endovascular group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.06; P = 0.12) after a median follow-up of 1.6 years. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups in the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with CLTI who had an adequate great saphenous vein for surgical revascularization (cohort 1), the incidence of a major adverse limb event or death was significantly lower in the surgical group than in the endovascular group. Among the patients who lacked an adequate saphenous vein conduit (cohort 2), the outcomes in the two groups were similar. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; BEST-CLI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02060630.).

Testing interventions to reduce clinical inertia in the treatment of hypertension: rationale and design of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical inertia, or failure to intensify treatment when indicated, leads to suboptimal blood pressure control. Interventions to overcome inertia and increase antihypertensive prescribing have been modestly successful in part because their effectiveness varies based on characteristics of the provider, the patient, or the provider-patient interaction. Understanding for whom each intervention is most effective could help target interventions and thus increase their impact. METHODS: This three-arm, randomized trial tests the effectiveness of 2 interventions to reduce clinical inertia in hypertension prescribing compared to usual care. Forty five primary care providers (PCPs) caring for patients with hypertension in need of treatment intensification completed baseline surveys that assessed behavioral traits and were randomized to one of three arms: 1) Pharmacist e-consult, in which a clinical pharmacist provided patient-specific recommendations for hypertension medication management to PCPs in advance of upcoming visits, 2) Social norming dashboards that displayed PCP's hypertension control rates compared to those of their peers, or 3) Usual care (no intervention). The primary outcome was the rate of intensification of hypertension treatment. We will compare this outcome between study arms and then evaluate the association between characteristics of providers, patients, their clinical interactions, and intervention responsiveness. RESULTS: Forty-five primary care providers were enrolled and randomized: 16 providers and 173 patients in the social norming dashboards arm, 15 providers and 143 patients in the pharmacist e-consult arm, and 14 providers and 150 patients in the usual care arm. On average, the mean patient age was 64 years, 47% were female, and 73% were white. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of patients were similar across arms, with the exception of more Hispanic patients in the usual care arm and fewest in the pharmacist e-consult arm. CONCLUSIONS: This study can help identify interventions to reduce inertia in hypertension care and potentially identify the characteristics of patients, providers, or patient-provider interactions to understand for whom each intervention would be most beneficial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT, Registered: NCT04603560).

"How" Versus "Why" Messaging to Increase Uptake of Booster Vaccination Against COVID-19: Results of a Pragmatic Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Messages aimed at increasing uptake of vaccines have been modestly successful, perhaps in part because they often focus on why individuals should receive a vaccine. Construal Level Theory posits that messages emphasizing "how" to get a vaccine may be more effective at encouraging vaccination than emphasizing "why." This message framing may be particularly important for COVID-19 booster acceptance. OBJECTIVE: To determine if pre-visit patient portal messages designed using Construal Level Theory increase rates of COVID-19 booster vaccination. DESIGN AND INTERVENTIONS: This 3-arm randomized trial was conducted across three large, diverse primary care clinics in Massachusetts between February and May 2022, testing the impact of "how" versus "why" framed pre-visit messages versus no messages ("usual care"). Messages were sent by patient portal two business days before a visit. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with upcoming primary care visits who had electronic health record evidence of receiving their initial COVID-19 vaccination series but not a booster dose. MAIN MEASURES: Receipt of a COVID-19 booster vaccination after the message was sent through the visit date (primary outcome) or 6 weeks (secondary outcome). KEY RESULTS: A total of 3665 patients were randomized (mean age: 53.5 years (SD: 17.3), 59% female, 65.2% White, 26.6% Hispanic), with 1249 to "how" 1199 to "why," and 1217 to usual care arms. Except for clinic and preferred language, characteristics were well balanced across arms. Rates of COVID-19 booster were 13.6% (usual care), 11.7% ("how") (odds ratio (OR) "how" vs usual care: 0.87, 95%CI: 0.67-1.14), and 13.7% ("why") ("why" vs usual care: OR: 1.01, 95%CI: 0.81-1.28). At 6 weeks, "why" outperformed "how" for vaccination (OR: 1.26, 95%CI: 1.06-1.49), with no difference versus usual care. CONCLUSIONS: We found no differences on visit booster receipt after single pre-visit portal messages designed using Construal Level Theory. Further studies to identify effective messaging interventions are needed, especially as additional doses are recommended. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov, ID: NCT04871776 . Initial release occurred 04/30/2021.

Disentangling drug contributions: anticholinergic burden in older adults linked to individual medications: a cross-sectional population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Medications with potent anticholinergic properties have well-documented adverse effects. A high cumulative anticholinergic burden may arise from the concurrent use of multiple medications with weaker anticholinergic effects. We sought to identify patterns of high anticholinergic burden and associated patient characteristics. METHODS: We identified patients aged ≥ 65 who filled ≥ 1 medication with anticholinergic adverse effects in 2019 and had a cumulative Anticholinergic Burden score (ACB) ≥ 4 (i.e., high anticholinergic burden) in a large US health insurer. We classified patients based on how they attained high burden, as follows: 1) only filling strong or moderate anticholinergic medications (i.e., ACB = 2 or 3, "moderate/strong"), 2) only filling lightly anticholinergic medications (i.e., ACB = 1, "light/possible"), and 3) filling any combination ("mix"). We used multinomial logistic regression to assess the association between measured patient characteristics and membership in the three anticholinergic burden classifications, using the moderate/strong group as the referent. RESULTS: In total, 83,286 eligible patients with high anticholinergic burden were identified (mean age: 74.3 years (SD:7.1), 72.9% female). Of these, 4.5% filled only strong/moderate anticholinergics, 4.3% filled only light/possible anticholinergics, and the rest filled a mix (91.2%). Within patients in the mixed group, 64.3% of medication fills were for light/possible anticholinergics, while 35.7% were for moderate/strong anticholinergics. Compared with patients in the moderate/strong anticholinergics group, patients filling only light/possible anticholinergics were more likely to be older (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] per 1-unit of age: 1.06, 95%CI: 1.05-1.07), less likely to be female (aOR: 0.56, 95%CI: 0.50-0.62 vs. male), more likely to have comorbidities (e.g., heart failure aOR: 3.18, 95%CI: 2.70-3.74 or depression aOR: 1.20, 95%CI: 1.09-1.33 vs. no comorbidity), and visited fewer physicians (aOR per 1-unit of change: 0.98, 95%CI: 0.97-0.98). Patients in the mixed group were older (aOR per 1-unit of age: 1.02, 95%CI: 1.02-1.03) and less likely to be female (aOR: 0.89, 95%CI: 0.82-0.97 vs. male) compared with those filling moderate/strong anticholinergics. CONCLUSION: Most older adults accumulated high anticholinergic burden through a combination of light/possible and moderate/strong anticholinergics rather than moderate/strong anticholinergics, with light/possible anticholinergics being the major drivers of overall anticholinergic burden. These insights may inform interventions to improve prescribing in older adults.

Disagreement between pharmacy claims and direct interview to identify patients with non-adherence to chronic cardiometabolic medications.

BACKGROUND: Accurate methods of identifying patients with suboptimal adherence to cardiometabolic medications are needed, and each approach has benefits and tradeoffs. METHODS: We used data from a large trial of patients with poorly controlled cardiometabolic disease and evidence of medication non-adherence measured using pharmacy claims data whose adherence was subsequently assessed during a telephone consultation with a clinical pharmacist. We then evaluated if the pharmacist assessment agreed with the non-adherence measured using claims. When pharmacist and claims assessments disagreed, we identified reasons why claims were insufficient and used multivariable modified Poisson regression to identify patient characteristics associated with disagreement. RESULTS: Of 1,069 patients identified as non-adherent using claims (proportion of days covered [PDC] <80%), 646 (60.4%) were confirmed as non-adherent on pharmacist interview. For the 423 patients (39.6%) where the interview disagreed with the claims, the most common reasons were paying cash or using an alternate insurance (36.6%), medication discontinuation or regimen change (32.8%), and recently becoming adherent (26.7%). Compared to patients whose claims and interview both showed non-adherence, patients whose interview disagreed with claims were less likely to miss outpatient office visits (RR:0.91, 95%CI:0.85-0.97) and more likely to have a baseline PDC above the median (RR:1.35, 95%CI:1.10-1.64). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients identified as non-adherent by claims, 39.6% were observed to be adherent when assessed during pharmacist consultation. This discrepancy was largely driven by paying out-of-pocket, using alternative insurance, or medication discontinuation or change. These findings have important implications for using pharmacy claims to identify and intervene upon medication non-adherence.

Reducing ethnic and racial disparities by improving undertreatment, control, and engagement in blood pressure management with health information technology (REDUCE-BP) hybrid effectiveness-implementation pragmatic trial: Rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: While racial/ethnic disparities in blood pressure control are documented, few interventions have successfully reduced these gaps. Under-prescribing, lack of treatment intensification, and suboptimal follow-up care are thought to be central contributors. Electronic health record (EHR) tools may help address these barriers and may be enhanced with behavioral science techniques. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a multicomponent behaviorally-informed EHR-based intervention on blood pressure control. TRIAL DESIGN: Reducing Ethnic and racial Disparities by improving Undertreatment, Control, and Engagement in Blood Pressure management with health information technology (REDUCE-BP) (NCT05030467) is a two-arm cluster-randomized hybrid type 1 pragmatic trial in a large multi-ethnic health care system. Twenty-four clinics (>350 primary care providers [PCPs] and >10,000 eligible patients) are assigned to either multi-component EHR-based intervention or usual care. Intervention clinic PCPs will receive several EHR tools designed to reduce disparities delivered at different points, including a: (1) dashboard of all patients visible upon logging on to the EHR displaying blood pressure control by race/ethnicity compared to their PCP peers and (2) set of tools in an individual patient's chart containing decision support to encourage treatment intensification, ordering home blood pressure measurement, interventions to address health-related social needs, default text for note documentation, and enhanced patient education materials. The primary outcome is patient-level change in systolic blood pressure over 12 months between arms; secondary outcomes include changes in disparities and other clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: REDUCE-BP will provide important insights into whether an EHR-based intervention designed using behavioral science can improve hypertension control and reduce disparities.

A pragmatic clinical trial assessing the effect of a targeted notification and clinical support pathway on the diagnostic evaluation and treatment of individuals with left ventricular hypertrophy (NOTIFY-LVH).

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records contain vast amounts of cardiovascular data, including potential clues suggesting unrecognized conditions. One important example is the identification of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) on echocardiography. If the underlying causes are untreated, individuals are at increased risk of developing clinically significant pathology. As the most common cause of LVH, hypertension accounts for more cardiovascular deaths than any other modifiable risk factor. Contemporary healthcare systems have suboptimal mechanisms for detecting and effectively implementing hypertension treatment before downstream consequences develop. Thus, there is an urgent need to validate alternative intervention strategies for individuals with preexisting-but potentially unrecognized-LVH. METHODS: Through a randomized pragmatic trial within a large integrated healthcare system, we will study the impact of a centralized clinical support pathway on the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension and other LVH-associated diseases in individuals with echocardiographic evidence of concentric LVH. Approximately 600 individuals who are not treated for hypertension and who do not have a known cardiomyopathy will be randomized. The intervention will be directed by population health coordinators who will notify longitudinal clinicians and offer to assist with the diagnostic evaluation of LVH. Our hypothesis is that an intervention that alerts clinicians to the presence of LVH will increase the detection and treatment of hypertension and the diagnosis of alternative causes of thickened myocardium. The primary outcome is the initiation of an antihypertensive medication. Secondary outcomes include new hypertension diagnoses and new cardiomyopathy diagnoses. The trial began in March 2023 and outcomes will be assessed 12 months from the start of follow-up. CONCLUSION: The NOTIFY-LVH trial will assess the efficacy of a centralized intervention to improve the detection and treatment of hypertension and LVH-associated diseases. Additionally, it will serve as a proof-of-concept for how to effectively utilize previously collected electronic health data to improve the recognition and management of a broad range of chronic cardiovascular conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05713916.

Baseline modern medical management in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVES: The use of optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) has not been well-studied. The Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI study (BEST-CLI) is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial sponsored by the National Institutes of Health comparing revascularization strategies in patients with CLTI. We evaluated the use of guideline-based OMT among patients with CLTI at the time of their enrollment into the trial. METHODS: A multidisciplinary committee defined OMT criteria related to blood pressure and diabetic management, lipid-lowering and antiplatelet medication use, and smoking status for patients enrolled in BEST-CLI. Status reports indicating adherence to OMT were provided to participating sites at regular intervals. Baseline demographic characteristics, comorbid medical conditions, and use of OMT at trial entry were evaluated for all randomized patients. A linear regression model was used to identify the relationship of predictors to the use of OMT. RESULTS: At the time of randomization (n = 1830 total enrolled), 87% of patients in BEST-CLI had hypertension, 69% had diabetes, 73% had hyperlipidemia, and 35% were currently smoking. Adherence to four OMT components (controlled blood pressure, not currently smoking, use of one lipid-lowering medication, and use of an antiplatelet agent) was modest. Only 25% of patients met all four OMT criteria; 38% met three, 24% met two, 11% met only one, and 2% met none. Age ≥80 years, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and Hispanic ethnicity were positively associated, whereas Black race was negatively associated, with the use of OMT. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients in BEST-CLI did not meet OMT guideline-based recommendations at time of entry. These data suggest a persistent major gap in the medical management of patients with advanced peripheral atherosclerosis and CLTI. Changes in OMT adherence over the course of the trial and their impact on clinical outcomes and quality of life will be assessed in future analyses.

Prescribing decision making by medical residents on night shifts: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Prescribing of medications with well-known adverse effects, like antipsychotics or benzodiazepines, during hospitalisation is extremely common despite guideline recommendations against their use. Barriers to optimal prescribing, including perceived pressure from allied health professionals and fatigue, may be particularly pronounced for less experienced medical residents, especially during night shifts when these medications are often prescribed. Under these circumstances, physicians may be more likely to use 'quick', often referred to as System 1 choices, rather than 'considered' System 2 strategies for decisions. Understanding how medical residents use, these different cognitive approaches could help develop interventions to improve prescribing. METHODS: To understand decision-making and contextual contributors that influence suboptimal prescribing during night coverage by medical residents, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with residents in general medicine inpatient settings. The interviews elicited perspectives on shift routines, stressful situations, factors influencing prescribing decision making and hypothetical measures that could improve prescribing. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed using codes developed by the team to generate themes using immersion/crystallisation approaches. RESULTS: We conducted interviews with 21 medical residents; 47% were female, 43% were White, and 43% were Asian. We identified five key themes: (i) time pressures affecting prescribing decisions, (ii) fears of judgement by senior physicians and peers and being responsible for patient outcomes, (iii) perceived pressure from nursing staff, amplified by nurses' greater experience, (iv) clinical acuity as a key factor influencing prescribing, and (v) strategies to improve communication between members of the care team, like ensuring adequate hand-off by day teams. CONCLUSION: Medical residents highlighted numerous contextual factors that promote quick thinking rather than slower thinking when prescribing on night shifts, particularly time constraints, perceived pressure and patient clinical acuity. Interventions aimed at reducing prescribing should address how to manage stress and perceived pressure in decision making.

Effect of a Biopsychosocial Intervention or Postural Therapy on Disability and Health Care Spending Among Patients With Acute and Subacute Spine Pain: The SPINE CARE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Low back and neck pain are often self-limited, but health care spending remains high. Objective: To evaluate the effects of 2 interventions that emphasize noninvasive care for spine pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, cluster, randomized clinical trial conducted at 33 centers in the US that enrolled 2971 participants with neck or back pain of 3 months' duration or less (enrollment, June 2017 to March 2020; final follow-up, March 2021). Interventions: Participants were randomized at the clinic-level to (1) usual care (n = 992); (2) a risk-stratified, multidisciplinary intervention (the identify, coordinate, and enhance [ICE] care model that combines physical therapy, health coach counseling, and consultation from a specialist in pain medicine or rehabilitation) (n = 829); or (3) individualized postural therapy (IPT), a postural therapy approach that combines physical therapy with building self-efficacy and self-management (n = 1150). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 3 months (range, 0 [best] to 100 [worst]; minimal clinically important difference, 6) and spine-related health care spending at 1 year. A 2-sided significance threshold of .025 was used to define statistical significance. Results: Among 2971 participants randomized (mean age, 51.7 years; 1792 women [60.3%]), 2733 (92%) finished the trial. Between baseline and 3-month follow-up, mean ODI scores changed from 31.2 to 15.4 for ICE, from 29.3 to 15.4 for IPT, and from 28.9 to 19.5 for usual care. At 3-month follow-up, absolute differences compared with usual care were -5.8 (95% CI, -7.7 to -3.9; P < .001) for ICE and -4.3 (95% CI, -5.9 to -2.6; P < .001) for IPT. Mean 12-month spending was $1448, $2528, and $1587 in the ICE, IPT, and usual care groups, respectively. Differences in spending compared with usual care were -$139 (risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.997]; P = .04) for ICE and $941 (risk ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.45]; P < .001) for IPT. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute or subacute spine pain, a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention or an individualized postural therapy intervention, each compared with usual care, resulted in small but statistically significant reductions in pain-related disability at 3 months. However, compared with usual care, the biopsychosocial intervention resulted in no significant difference in spine-related health care spending and the postural therapy intervention resulted in significantly greater spine-related health care spending at 1 year. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03083886.

Recommendations for the Conduct and Reporting of Research Involving Flexible Electronic Health Record-Based Interventions.

In the past 2 decades, the United States has seen widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) and a transition from mostly locally developed EHRs to commercial systems. However, most research on quality improvement and safety interventions in EHRs is still conducted at a single site, in a single EHR. Although single-site studies are important early in the innovation lifecycle, multisite studies of EHR interventions are critical for generalizability. Because EHR software, configuration, and local context differ considerably across health care organizations, it can be difficult to implement a single, standardized intervention across multiple sites in a study. This article outlines key strengths, weaknesses, challenges, and opportunities for standardization of EHR interventions in multisite studies and describes flexible trial designs suitable for studying complex interventions, including EHR interventions. It also outlines key considerations for reporting on flexible trials of EHR interventions, including sharing details of the process for designing interventions and their content, details of outcomes being studied and approaches for pooling, and the importance of sharing code and configuration whenever possible.

Preferences for mHealth Technology and Text Messaging Communication in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Qualitative Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with diabetes need regular support to help them manage their diabetes on their own, ideally delivered via mechanisms that they already use, such as their mobile phones. One reason for the modest effectiveness of prior technology-based interventions may be that the patient perspective has been insufficiently incorporated. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand patients' preferences for mobile health (mHealth) technology and how that technology can be integrated into patients' routines, especially with regard to medication use. METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative individual interviews with patients with type 2 diabetes from an urban health care system to elicit and explore their perspectives on diabetes medication-taking behaviors, daily patterns of using mobile technology, use of mHealth technology for diabetes care, acceptability of text messages to support medication adherence, and preferred framing of information within text messages to support diabetes care. The interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. The data were analyzed using codes developed by the study team to generate themes, with representative quotations selected as illustrations. RESULTS: We conducted interviews with 20 participants, of whom 12 (60%) were female and 9 (45%) were White; in addition, the participants' mean glycated hemoglobin A1c control was 7.8 (SD 1.1). Overall, 5 key themes were identified: patients try to incorporate cues into their routines to help them with consistent medication taking; many patients leverage some form of technology as a cue to support adherence to medication taking and diabetes self-management behaviors; patients value simplicity and integration of technology solutions used for diabetes care, managing medications, and communicating with health care providers; some patients express reluctance to rely on mobile technology for these diabetes care behaviors; and patients believe they prefer positively framed communication, but communication preferences are highly individualized. CONCLUSIONS: The participants expressed some hesitation about using mobile technology in supporting diabetes self-management but have largely incorporated it or are open to incorporating it as a cue to make medication taking more automatic and less burdensome. When using technology to support diabetes self-management, participants exhibited individualized preferences, but overall, they preferred simple and positively framed communication. mHealth interventions may be improved by focusing on integrating them easily into daily routines and increasing the customization of content.

The accuracy of self-reported blood pressure in the Medication adherence Improvement Support App For Engagement-Blood Pressure (MedISAFE-BP) trial: Implications for pragmatic trials.

Self-report of health conditions and behaviors is one potential strategy to increase the pace of enrollment into pragmatic clinical trials. In this study, we assessed the accuracy of self-reported poorly controlled hypertension among adults in the community who were screened for participation in the MedISAFE-BP trial. Of individuals who self-reported poorly controlled hypertension using the online trial enrollment platform, 64% had a systolic blood pressure less than 140 mm Hg when measured at home. Although we identified several characteristics associated with accurate self-report including older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01-1.03), diabetes (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.17-2.14), and low health activation (OR 1.56 95% CI 1.17-2.07), we were unable to identify patients for whom self-reported hypertension would be a reliable method for their inclusion in a pragmatic trial.

Comparison of a new 3-item self-reported measure of adherence to medication with pharmacy claims data in patients with cardiometabolic disease.

BACKGROUND: Less than half of patients with cardiometabolic disease consistently take prescribed medications. While health insurers and some delivery organizations use claims to measure adherence, most clinicians do not have access during routine interactions. Self-reported scales exist, but their practical utility is often limited by length or cost. By contrast, the accuracy of a new 3-item self-reported measure has been demonstrated in individuals with HIV. We evaluated its concordance with claims-based adherence measures in cardiometabolic disease. METHODS: We used data from a recently-completed pragmatic trial of patients with cardiometabolic conditions. After 12 months of follow-up, intervention subjects were mailed a survey with the 3-item measure that queries about medication use in the prior 30 days. Responses were linearly transformed and averaged. Adherence was also measured in claims in month 12 and months 1-12 of the trial using proportion of days covered (PDC) metrics. We compared validation metrics for non-adherence for self-report (average <0.80) compared with claims (PDC <0.80). RESULTS: Of 459 patients returning the survey (response rate: 43.5%), 50.1% were non-adherent in claims in month 12 while 20.9% were non-adherent based on the survey. Specificity of the 3-item metric for non-adherence was high (month 12: 0.83). Sensitivity was relatively poor (month 12: 0.25). Month 12 positive and negative predictive values were 0.59 and 0.52, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A 3-item self-reported measure has high specificity but poor sensitivity for non-adherence versus claims in cardiometabolic disease. Despite this, the tool could help target those needing adherence support, particularly in the absence of claims data.

Not there yet: using data-driven methods to predict who becomes costly among low-cost patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a leading cause of Medicare spending; predicting which individuals are likely to be costly is essential for targeting interventions. Current approaches generally focus on composite measures, short time-horizons, or patients who are already high utilizers, whose costs may be harder to modify. Thus, we used data-driven methods to classify unique clusters in Medicare claims who were initially low utilizers by their diabetes spending patterns in subsequent years and used machine learning to predict these patterns. METHODS: We identified beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes whose spending was in the bottom 90% of diabetes care spending in a one-year baseline period in Medicare fee-for-service data. We used group-based trajectory modeling to classify unique clusters of patients by diabetes-related spending patterns over a two-year follow-up. Prediction models were estimated with generalized boosted regression, a machine learning method, using sets of all baseline predictors, diabetes predictors, and predictors that are potentially-modifiable through interventions. Each model was evaluated through C-statistics and 5-fold cross-validation. RESULTS: Among 33,789 beneficiaries (baseline median diabetes spending: $4153), we identified 5 distinct spending patterns that could largely be predicted; of these, 68.1% of patients had consistent spending, 25.3% had spending that rose quickly, and 6.6% of patients had spending that rose progressively. The ability to predict these groups was moderate (validated C-statistics: 0.63 to 0.87). The most influential factors for those with progressively rising spending were age, generosity of coverage, prior spending, and medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with type 2 diabetes who were initially low spenders exhibit distinct subsequent long-term patterns of diabetes spending; membership in these patterns can be largely predicted with data-driven methods. These findings as well as applications of the overall approach could potentially inform the design and timing of diabetes or cost-containment interventions, such as medication adherence or interventions that enhance access to care, among patients with type 2 diabetes.

Quantifying Social Reinforcement Among Family Members on Adherence to Medications for Chronic Conditions: a US-Based Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: More than 50% of patients are non-adherent to medications, often without an easily identifiable reason to clinicians. No study has quantified the extent to which health behaviors like medication-taking are correlated within families using national or routinely collected data for a range of conditions. OBJECTIVE: To examine how an individual's health behaviors are influenced by those of their family members, particularly in adherence to medications for chronic conditions. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS: Using claims from a large nationwide insurer, we identified patients initiating medications for one of five chronic conditions with a family member who also recently filled one of these medications. MAIN MEASURES: The primary exposure was whether family members were fully adherent (defined as a proportion of days covered ≥ 80%) before the patient's date of initiation. The outcome of interest was whether patients were fully adherent in the 12 months after initiation. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were also measured before initiation. We used multivariable modified Poisson regression to examine the association between prior family adherence and subsequent patient adherence. KEY RESULTS: Among 254,144 patients, rates of full adherence among patients whose family members were and were not fully adherent were 37.3% and 26.9%, respectively (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 1.29, 95%CI 1.28-1.31). The association was stronger when both used cardiometabolic medications (aRR 1.35, 95%CI 1.32-1.37). Similarly, patients were also 38% more likely to be adherent if they and their family members used a medication for the same condition (aRR 1.38, 95%CI 1.35-1.40). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence among family members appeared to be highly correlated, suggesting positive reinforcement by family or the sharing of unmeasured behaviors or characteristics associated with better adherence. Regardless, information about prior adherence among family members from routinely collected data could potentially inform adherence prediction or intervention efforts.

A concept-wide association study to identify potential risk factors for nonadherence among prevalent users of antihypertensives.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether an association study using information contained in clinical notes could identify known and potentially novel risk factors for nonadherence to antihypertensive medications. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective concept-wide association study (CWAS) using clinical notes to identify potential risk factors for medication nonadherence, adjusting for age, sex, race, baseline blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and a combined comorbidity score. Participants included Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older receiving care at the Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates network from 2010-2012 and enrolled in a Medicare Advantage program. Concepts were extracted from clinical notes in the year prior to the index prescription date for each patient. We tested associations with the outcome for 5013 concepts extracted from clinical notes in a derivation cohort (4382 patients) and accounted for multiple hypothesis testing by using a false discovery rate threshold of less than 5% (q < .05). We then confirmed the associations in a validation cohort (3836 patients). Medication nonadherence was defined using a proportion of days covered (PDC) threshold less than 0.8 using pharmacy claims data. RESULTS: We found 415 concepts associated with nonadherence, which we organized into 11 clusters using a hierarchical clustering approach. Volume depletion and overload, assessment of needs at the point of discharge, mood disorders, neurological disorders, complex coordination of care, and documentation of noncompliance were some of the factors associated with nonadherence. CONCLUSIONS: This approach was successful in identifying previously described and potentially new risk factors for antihypertensive nonadherence using the clinical narrative.