Comparative Outcomes of Sacubitril/Valsartan Use After Hospitalization for Heart Failure Among Medicare Beneficiaries Naïve to Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors.

Sacubitril/valsartan improves outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis). However, data on postdischarge outcomes in renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi)-naïve patients are limited. We included Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years who were hospitalized for HFrEF in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry between October 2015 and June 2019, had part D prescription coverage, and were not on RASi therapy during the 6 months before hospital admission. We examined the associations between sacubitril/valsartan prescription at hospital discharge and outcomes at 30 days and 1 year after discharge using overlap-weighted median regression and Cox proportional hazards models. The end points included "home time" (defined as days alive and out of any health care institution), mortality, and rehospitalization. Among 3,572 patients with HFrEF and who are naïve to RASi therapy, at discharge, 290 (8.1%) were prescribed sacubitril/valsartan and 1,390 (38.9%) were prescribed ACEis and angiotensin receptor blockers. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan had a longer median home time (parameter estimate 27.0 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.40 to 41.6, p <0.001) and lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.91, p = 0.004) at 1 year than patients not prescribed sacubitril/valsartan. The prescription of sacubitril/valsartan was not significantly associated with all-cause rehospitalization (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, p = 0.10) or heart failure rehospitalization (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.07, p = 0.19). In a restricted comparison of patients discharged on sacubitril/valsartan versus ACEis and angiotensin receptor blockers, there were no significant differences in the outcomes. In conclusion, in this contemporary population of RASi-naïve patients with HFrEF from routine clinical practice, compared with not initiating, the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan at discharge was associated with longer home time and improvements in overall survival.

Initial Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair vs Medical Therapy for Acute Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection.

Importance: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has increasingly been used for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (uTBAD) despite limited supporting data. Objective: To assess whether initial TEVAR following uTBAD is associated with reduced mortality or morbidity compared with medical therapy alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services inpatient claims data for adults aged 65 years or older with index admissions for acute uTBAD from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2018, with follow-up available through December 31, 2019. Exposures: Initial TEVAR was defined as TEVAR within 30 days of admission for acute uTBAD. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular hospitalizations, aorta-related and repeated aorta-related hospitalizations, and aortic interventions associated with initial TEVAR vs medical therapy. Propensity score inverse probability weighting was used. Results: Of 7105 patients with eligible index admissions for acute uTBAD, 1140 (16.0%) underwent initial TEVAR (623 [54.6%] female; median age, 74 years [IQR, 68-80 years]) and 5965 (84.0%) did not undergo TEVAR (3344 [56.1%] female; median age, 76 years [IQR, 69-83 years]). Receipt of TEVAR was associated with region (vs South; Midwest: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.81]; P < .001; Northeast: aOR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.50-0.79]; P < .001), Medicaid dual eligibility (aOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.91; P = .003), hypertension (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.54; P = .03), peripheral vascular disease (aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02-1.49; P = .03), and year of admission (2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were associated with greater odds of TEVAR compared with 2011). After inverse probability weighting, mortality was similar for the 2 strategies up to 5 years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85-1.06), as were aorta-related hospitalizations (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.99-1.27), aortic interventions (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.20), and cardiovascular hospitalizations (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.20). In a sensitivity analysis that included deaths within the first 30 days, initial TEVAR was associated with lower mortality over a period of 1 year (adjusted HR [aHR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99; P = .03), 2 years (aHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96; P = .008), and 5 years (aHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96; P = .004). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, 16.0% of patients underwent initial TEVAR within 30 days of uTBAD, and receipt of initial TEVAR was associated with hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, region, Medicaid dual eligibility, and year of admission. Initial TEVAR was not associated with improved mortality or reduced hospitalizations or aortic interventions over a period of 5 years, but in a sensitivity analysis that included deaths within the first 30 days, initial TEVAR was associated with lower mortality. These findings, along with cost-effectiveness and quality of life, should be assessed in a prospective trial in the US population.

Impact of risk factor control on peripheral artery disease outcomes and health disparities.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with modifiable atherosclerotic risk factors like hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and smoking. However, the effect of risk factor control on outcomes and disparities in achieving control is less well understood. METHODS: All patients in an integrated, regional health system with PAD-related encounters, fee-for-service Medicare, and clinical risk factor control data were identified. Component risk factors were dichotomized into controlled and uncontrolled categories (control defined as low-density lipoprotein < 100 mg/dL, hemoglobin A1c < 7.0%, SBP < 140 mmHg, and current nonsmoker) and composite categories (none, 1, ⩾ 2 uncontrolled RFs) created. The primary outcome was major adverse vascular events (MAVE, a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and lower-extremity revascularization and amputation). RESULTS: The cohort included 781 patients with PAD, average age 72.5 ± 9.8 years, of whom 30.1% were Black, and 19.1% were Medicaid dual-enrolled. In this cohort, 260 (33.3%) had no uncontrolled risk factors and 200 (25.6%) had two or more uncontrolled risk factors. Patients with the poorest risk factor control were more likely to be Black (p < 0.001), Medicaid dual-enrolled (p < 0.001), and have chronic limb-threatening ischemia (p = 0.009). Significant differences in MAVE by degree of risk factor control were observed at 30 days (none uncontrolled: 5.8%, 1 uncontrolled: 11.5%, ⩾ 2 uncontrolled: 13.6%; p = 0.01) but not at 1 year (p = 0.08). risk factor control was not associated with outcomes at 1 year after adjustment for patient and PAD-specific characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: risk factor control is poor among patients with PAD. Significant disparities in achieving optimal risk factor control represent a potential target for reducing inequities in outcomes.

Clinician Specialty, Access to Care, and Outcomes Among Patients with Peripheral Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the relationship between patterns of peripheral artery disease and outcomes is an essential step toward improving care and outcomes. We hypothesized that clinician specialty would be associated with occurrence of major adverse vascular events (MAVE). METHODS: Patients with at least 1 peripheral artery disease-related encounter in our health system and fee-for-service Medicare were divided into groups based on the specialty of the clinician (ie, cardiologist, surgeon, podiatrist, primary care, or other) providing a plurality of peripheral artery disease-coded care in the year prior to index encounter. The primary outcome was MAVE (a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, lower extremity revascularization, and lower extremity amputation). RESULTS: The cohort included 1768 patients, of whom 30.0% were Black, 23.9% were Medicaid dual-enrollment eligible, and 31.1% lived in rural areas. Patients receiving a plurality of their care from podiatrists had the highest 1-year rates of MAVE (34.4%, P <.001), hospitalization (65.9%, P <.001), and amputations (22.6%, P <.001). Clinician specialty was not associated with outcomes after adjustment. Patients who were Medicaid dual-eligible had higher adjusted risks of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-2.14) and all-cause hospitalization (HRadj 1.20, 95% CI 1.03-1.40) and patients who were Black had a higher adjusted risk of amputation (HRadj 1.49, 95% CI 1.03-2.15). CONCLUSIONS: Clinician specialty was not associated with worse outcomes after adjustment, but certain socioeconomic factors were. The effects of clinician specialty and socioeconomic status were likely attenuated by the fact that all patients in this study had health insurance; these analyses require confirmation in a more representative cohort.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Adherence and Postdischarge Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to investigate associations between sacubitril/valsartan adherence and clinical outcomes after hospitalization for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan improves outcomes in HFrEF, though the extent to which medication adherence is associated with outcomes in routine care is less well characterized. METHODS: The authors analyzed patients aged ≥65 years hospitalized for HFrEF within the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure registry linked with Medicare claims between October 2015 and September 2018 who were discharged with sacubitril/valsartan. Sacubitril/valsartan adherence was assessed using medication fills to calculate proportion of days covered (PDC) through 90 days postdischarge. Associations between postdischarge adherence (PDC < or ≥80%) and risk of readmission and death within 1 year were examined by comparing cumulative incidences and adjusted event rates. RESULTS: Among 897 patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan at discharge, 295 (32.9%) had PDC ≥80% and 602 (67.1%) had PDC <80%. Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. Compared with patients with PDC <80%, patients with PDC ≥80% had a significantly lower adjusted hazard of all-cause rehospitalization (HR: 0.66 [95% CI: 0.48-0.89]) and death (HR: 0.42 [95% CI: 0.22-0.79]) at 90 days and at 1 year (HR: 0.69 [95% CI: 0.56-0.86] and HR: 0.53 [95% CI: 0.38-0.74], respectively). For every 5 percentage point increase in PDC, patients experienced a significant reduction in rehospitalization (HR: 0.98 [95% CI: 0.97-0.99]) and death (HR: 0.96 [95% CI: 0.94-0.97]) at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalized for HFrEF and discharged on sacubitril/valsartan, high adherence to sacubitril/valsartan within 90 days after discharge was associated with substantially lower rates of readmission and death. Additional efforts to improve adherence with sacubitril/valsartan and other guideline-directed medical therapies in HFrEF are warranted.

Clinical Effectiveness of Sacubitril/Valsartan Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Background Sacubitril/Valsartan has been highly efficacious in randomized trials of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in older patients hospitalized for HFrEF in real-world US practice is unclear. Methods and Results This study included Medicare beneficiaries age ≥65 years who were hospitalized for HFrEF ≤40% in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry between October 2015 and December 2018, and eligible for sacubitril/valsartan. Associations between discharge prescription of sacubitril/valsartan and clinical outcomes were assessed after inverse probability of treatment weighting and adjustment for other HFrEF medications. Overall, 1551 (10.9%) patients were discharged on sacubitril/valsartan. Of those not prescribed sacubitril/valsartan, 7857 (62.0%) were prescribed an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker. Over 12-month follow-up, compared with a discharge prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker, sacubitril/valsartan was independently associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94; P=0.004) but not all-cause hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07; P=0.55) or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.91-1.18; P=0.59). Patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan versus those without a prescription had lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79; P<0.001), all-cause hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98; P=0.02), but not heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08; P=0.40). Conclusions Among patients hospitalized for HFrEF, prescription of sacubitril/valsartan at discharge was independently associated with reduced postdischarge mortality compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker, and reduced mortality and all-cause hospitalization compared with no sacubitril/valsartan. These findings support the use of sacubitril/valsartan to improve postdischarge outcomes among older patients hospitalized for HFrEF in routine US clinical practice.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Initiation and Postdischarge Adherence Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: We investigated associations between timing of sacubitril/valsartan initiation and postdischarge adherence among patients hospitalized for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Clinical trials support initiation of sacubitril/valsartan among patients hospitalized with HFrEF. The association between timing of initiation and postdischarge adherence is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed patients hospitalized for HFrEF (EF of ≤40%) within the Get With The Guidelines Heart Failure registry linked with Medicare claims between October 2015 and September 2017 who were eligible for sacubitril/valsartan. Follow-up was through December 2018. Patients were grouped by timing of sacubitril/valsartan initiation. Sacubitril/valsartan adherence at 90 and 365 days after discharge was assessed by calculating proportion of days covered (PDC) using medication fills. Among 4666 patients, 108 (2.3%) were continued on sacubitril/valsartan (on sacubitril/valsartan at admission and discharge), 191 (4.1%) were initiated as inpatients, 130 (2.8%) were initiated at discharge, and 4237 (90.1%) were discharged without sacubitril/valsartan. Median (25th, 75th) proportion of days covered through 90 days among those continued, initiated as inpatients, and initiated at discharge was 0.9 (0.6-0.1), 0.3 (0.0-0.7), and 0.0 (0.0-0.7), respectively (P < .001). Patients discharged without sacubitril/valsartan had very low rates of any sacubitril/valsartan fills within 90 and 365 days of discharge (2.1% and 7.7% of surviving patients, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In 2015-2017 US clinical practice, more than 90% of eligible patients hospitalized for HFrEF were discharged without sacubitril/valsartan. Patients initiated as inpatients had a higher postdischarge proportion of days covered than patients initiated at discharge. Patients discharged without sacubitril/valsartan were unlikely to receive it during follow-up. These findings highlight the importance of initiating sacubitril/valsartan during hospitalization to improve the quality of care.

The association of healthcare disparities and patient-specific factors on clinical outcomes in peripheral artery disease.

BACKGROUND: PAD increases the risk of cardiovascular mortality and limb loss, and disparities in treatment and outcomes have been described. However, the association of patient-specific characteristics with variation in outcomes is less well known. METHODS: Patients with PAD from Duke University Health System (DUHS) between January 1, 2015 and March 31, 2016 were identified. PAD status was confirmed through ground truth adjudication and predictive modeling using diagnosis codes, procedure codes, and other administrative data. Symptom severity, lower extremity imaging, and ankle-brachial index (ABI) were manually abstracted from the electronic health record (EHR). Data was linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data to provide longitudinal follow up. Primary outcome was major adverse vascular events (MAVE), a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, lower extremity revascularization and amputation. RESULTS: Of 1,768 patients with PAD, 31.6% were asymptomatic, 41.2% had intermittent claudication (IC), and 27.3% had chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). At 1 year, patients with CLTI had higher rates of MAVE compared with asymptomatic or IC patients. CLTI and Medicaid dual eligibility were independent predictors of mortality. CLTI and Black race were associated with amputation. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of MAVE were highest in patients with CLTI, but patients with IC or asymptomatic disease also had high rates of adverse events. Black and Medicaid dual-eligible patients were disproportionately present in the CLTI subgroup and were at higher risk of amputation and mortality, respectively. Future studies must focus on early identification of high-risk patient groups to improve outcomes in patients with PAD.

Model-Based Algorithms for Detecting Peripheral Artery Disease Using Administrative Data From an Electronic Health Record Data System: Algorithm Development Study.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) affects 8 to 10 million Americans, who face significantly elevated risks of both mortality and major limb events such as amputation. Unfortunately, PAD is relatively underdiagnosed, undertreated, and underresearched, leading to wide variations in treatment patterns and outcomes. Efforts to improve PAD care and outcomes have been hampered by persistent difficulties identifying patients with PAD for clinical and investigatory purposes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop and validate a model-based algorithm to detect patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) using data from an electronic health record (EHR) system. METHODS: An initial query of the EHR in a large health system identified all patients with PAD-related diagnosis codes for any encounter during the study period. Clinical adjudication of PAD diagnosis was performed by chart review on a random subgroup. A binary logistic regression to predict PAD was built and validated using a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) approach in the adjudicated patients. The algorithm was then applied to the nonsampled records to further evaluate its performance. RESULTS: The initial EHR data query using 406 diagnostic codes yielded 15,406 patients. Overall, 2500 patients were randomly selected for ground truth PAD status adjudication. In the end, 108 code flags remained after removing rarely- and never-used codes. We entered these code flags plus administrative encounter, imaging, procedure, and specialist flags into a LASSO model. The area under the curve for this model was 0.862. CONCLUSIONS: The algorithm we constructed has two main advantages over other approaches to the identification of patients with PAD. First, it was derived from a broad population of patients with many different PAD manifestations and treatment pathways across a large health system. Second, our model does not rely on clinical notes and can be applied in situations in which only administrative billing data (eg, large administrative data sets) are available. A combination of diagnosis codes and administrative flags can accurately identify patients with PAD in large cohorts.

Patient Perceptions and Familiarity With Medical Therapy for Heart Failure.

Importance: There are major gaps in use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients with heart failure (HF). Patient-reported data outlining patient goals and preferences associated with GDMT are not available. Objective: To survey patients with chronic HF to better understand their experiences and perceptions of living with HF, including their familiarity and concerns with important GDMT therapies. Design, Setting, and Participants: Study participants were recruited from the GfK KnowledgePanel, a probability-sampled online panel representative of the US adult population. English-speaking adults who met the following criteria were eligible if they were (1) previously told by a physician that they had HF; (2) currently taking medications for HF; and (3) had no history of left ventricular assist device or cardiac transplant. Data were collected between October and November 2018. Analysis began in December 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: The survey included 4 primary domains: (1) relative importance of disease-related goals, (2) challenges associated with living with HF, (3) decision-making process associated with HF medication use, and (4) awareness and concerns about available HF medications. Results: Of 30 707 KnowledgePanel members who received the initial survey, 15 091 (49.1%) completed the screening questions, 440 were eligible and began the survey, and 429 completed the survey. The median (interquartile range) age was 68 (60-75) years and most were white (320 [74.6%]), male (304 [70.9%]), and had at least a high school education (409 [95.3%]). Most survey responders reported familiarity with ß-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and diuretics. Overall, 107 (24.9%) reported familiarity with angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. Overall, 136 patients (42.5%) reported have safety concerns regarding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, and 133 (38.5%) regarding ß-blockers, 35 (37.9%) regarding mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, 38 (36.5%) regarding angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, and 123 (37.2%) regarding diuretics. Between 27.7% (n = 26) and 38.5% (n = 136) reported concerns regarding the effectiveness of ß-blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, or diuretics, while 41% (n = 132) were concerned with the effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, many patients were not familiar with GDMT for HF, with familiarity lowest for angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. Among patients not familiar with these therapies, significant proportions questioned their effectiveness and/or safety. Enhanced patient education and shared decision-making support may be effective strategies to improve the uptake of GDMT for HF in US clinical practice.

Distribution of Cardiovascular Health by Individual- and Neighborhood-Level Socioeconomic Status: Findings From the Jackson Heart Study.

BACKGROUND: Data demonstrate a positive relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and cardiovascular health (CVH). OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between individual- and neighborhood-level SES and CVH among participants of the JHS (Jackson Heart Study), a community-based cohort of African Americans in Jackson, Mississippi. METHODS: We included all JHS participants with complete SES and CVH information at the baseline study visit (n = 3,667). We characterized individual- and neighborhood-level SES according to income (primary analysis) and education (secondary analysis), respectively. The outcome of interest for these analyses was a CVH score, based on 7 modifiable behaviors and factors, summed to a total of 0 (worst) to 14 (best) points. We utilized generalized estimating equations to account for the clustering of participants within the same residential areas to estimate the linear association between SES and CVH. RESULTS: The median age of the participants was 55 years, and 64% were women. Nearly one-third of eligible participants had individual incomes <$20,000 and close to 40% lived in the lowest neighborhood income category (<$25,480). Adjusted for age, sex, and neighborhood SES, there was an average increase in CVH score of 0.31 points associated with each 1-category increase in individual income. Similarly, each 1-category increase in neighborhood SES was associated with a 0.19-point increase in CVH score. These patterns held for our secondary analyses, which used educational attainment in place of income. These data did not suggest a synergistic effect of individual- and neighborhood-level SES on CVH. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a potential causal pathway for disparities in CVH among vulnerable populations. These data can be useful to the JHS community to empower public health and clinical interventions and policies for the improvement of CVH.

Relationship Between Hospital Characteristics and Early Adoption of Angiotensin-Receptor/Neprilysin Inhibitor Among Eligible Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure.

Background The angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitor ( ARNI ) sacubitril/valsartan reduces hospitalization and mortality for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, adoption of ARNI into clinical practice has been slow. Factors influencing use of ARNI have not been fully elucidated. Using data from the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry, Hospital Compare, Dartmouth Atlas, and the American Hospital Association Survey, we sought to identify hospital characteristics associated with patient-level receipt of an ARNI prescription. Methods and Results We analyzed patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who were eligible for ARNI prescription (ejection fraction≤40%, no contraindications) and hospitalized from October 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016. We used logistic regression to estimate the associations between hospital characteristics and patient ARNI prescription at hospital discharge, accounting for clustering of patients within hospitals using generalized estimating equation methods and adjusting for patient-level covariates. Of 16 674 eligible hospitalizations from 210 hospitals, 1020 patients (6.1%) were prescribed ARNI at discharge. The median hospital-level proportion of patients prescribed ARNI was 3.3% (Q1, Q3: 0%, 12.6%). After adjustment for patient-level covariates, for-profit hospitals had significantly higher odds of ARNI prescription compared with not-for-profit hospitals (odds ratio, 2.53; 95% CI , 1.05-6.10; P=0.04), and hospitals located in the Western United States had lower odds of ARNI prescription compared with those in the Northeast (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI , 0.13-0.84; P=0.02). Conclusions Relatively few hospital characteristics were associated with ARNI prescription at hospital discharge, in contrast to what has been observed in early adoption in other disease areas. Additional evaluation of barriers to implementing new evidence into heart failure practice is needed.

Association of Primary Care Providers' Beliefs of Statins for Primary Prevention and Statin Prescription.

Background The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Treatment Guideline increased the number of primary prevention patients eligible for statin therapy, yet uptake of these guidelines has been modest. Little is known of how primary care provider ( PCP ) beliefs influence statin prescription. Methods and Results We surveyed 164 PCP s from a community-based North Carolina network in 2017 about statin therapy. We evaluated statin initiation among the PCP s' statin-eligible patients between 2014 and 2015 without a previous prescription. Seventy-two PCP s (43.9%) completed the survey. The median estimate of the relative risk reduction for high-intensity statins was 45% (interquartile range, 25%-50%). A minority of providers (27.8%) believed statins caused diabetes mellitus, and only 16.7% reported always/very often discussing this with patients. Most PCPs (97.2%) believed that statins cause myopathy, and 72.3% reported always/very often discussing this with patients. Most (77.7%) reported always/very often using the 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk calculator, although many reported that in most cases other risk factors or patient preferences influenced prescribing (59.8% and 43.1%, respectively). Of 6172 statin-eligible patients, 22.3% received a prescription for a moderate- or high-intensity statin at follow-up. Providers reporting greater reliance on risk factors beyond atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk were less likely to prescribe statins. Conclusions Although beliefs and approaches to statin discussions vary among community PCP s, new prescription rates are low and minimally associated with those beliefs. These results highlight the complexity of increasing statin prescriptions for primary prevention and suggest that strategies to facilitate standardized discussions and to address external influences on patient beliefs warrant future study.

Applying a common data model to Asian databases for multinational pharmacoepidemiologic studies: opportunities and challenges.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of the Asian Pharmacoepidemiology Network is to study the effectiveness and safety of medications commonly used in Asia using databases from individual Asian countries. An efficient infrastructure to support multinational pharmacoepidemiologic studies is critical to this effort. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We converted data from the Japan Medical Data Center database, Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, Hong Kong's Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System, South Korea's Ajou University School of Medicine database, and the US Medicare 5% sample to the Observational Medical Outcome Partnership common data model (CDM). RESULTS: We completed and documented the process for the CDM conversion. The coordinating center and participating sites reviewed the documents and refined the conversions based on the comments. The time required to convert data to the CDM varied widely across sites and included conversion to standard terminology codes and refinements of the conversion based on reviews. We mapped 97.2%, 86.7%, 92.6%, and 80.1% of domestic drug codes from the USA, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Korea to RxNorm, respectively. The mapping rate from Japanese domestic drug codes to RxNorm (70.7%) was lower than from other countries, and we mapped remaining unmapped drugs to Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System codes. Because the native databases used international procedure coding systems for which mapping tables have been established, we were able to map >90% of diagnosis and procedure codes to standard terminology codes. CONCLUSION: The CDM established the foundation and reinforced collaboration for multinational pharmacoepidemiologic studies in Asia. Mapping of terminology codes was the greatest challenge, because of differences in health systems, cultures, and coding systems.

Early impact of guideline publication on angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor use among patients hospitalized for heart failure.

BACKGROUND: On May 20, 2016, US professional organizations in cardiology published joint treatment guidelines recommending the use of angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) for eligible patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Using data from the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry, we evaluated the early impact of this update on temporal trends in ARNI prescription. METHODS: We analyzed patients with HFrEF who were eligible for ARNI prescription (EF ≤40%, no contraindications) and hospitalized from February 20, 2016, through August 19, 2016-allowing for 13weeks before and after guideline publication. We quantified trends in ARNI use associated with guidelines publication with an interrupted time-series design using logistic regression and accounting for correlations within hospitals using general estimating equation methods. RESULTS: Of 7,200 eligible patient hospitalizations, 51.9% were discharged in the period directly preceding publication of the guidelines, and 48.1% were discharged after. Odds ratios of ARNI prescription at discharge were significantly higher in the postguideline period compared with the preguideline period in adjusted models (adjusted odds ratio 1.29, 95% CI 1.06-1.57, P=.01). However, there was no significant interaction between observed and expected ARNI use after guideline publication (Pinteraction=.14). Results were consistent using a 6-month before and after time frame. CONCLUSIONS: The model suggested a small increase in ARNI use in HF patients being discharged from the hospital immediately after guideline release. However, the publication of national guidelines recommending ARNI use seemed to have little influence on the adoption of this evidence-based medication in the first 3 to 6months.

Home-Time After Discharge Among Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Surveys of patients with cardiovascular disease have suggested that "home-time"-being alive and out of any health care institution-is a prioritized outcome. This novel measure has not been studied among patients with heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to characterize home-time following hospitalization for HF and assess its relationship with patient characteristics and traditionally reported clinical outcomes. METHODS: Using GWTG-HF (Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure) registry data, patients discharged alive from an HF hospitalization between 2011 and 2014 and ≥65 years of age were identified. Using Medicare claims, post-discharge home-time over 30-day and 1-year follow-up was calculated for each patient as the number of days alive and spent outside of a hospital, skilled nursing facility (SNF), or rehabilitation facility. RESULTS: Among 59,736 patients, 57,992 (97.1%) and 42,153 (70.6%) had complete follow-up for home-time calculation through 30 days and 1 year, respectively. The mean home-time was 21.6 ± 11.7 days at 30 days and 243.9 ± 137.6 days at 1 year. Contributions to reduced home-time varied by follow-up period, with days spent in SNF being the largest contributor though 30 days and death being the largest contributor through 1 year. Over 1 year, 2,044 (4.8%) patients had no home-time following index hospitalization discharge, whereas 8,194 (19.4%) had 365 days of home-time. In regression models, several conditions were associated with substantially reduced home-time, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal insufficiency, and dementia. Through 1 year, home-time was highly correlated with time-to-event endpoints of death (tau = 0.72) and the composite of death or HF readmission (tau = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Home-time, which can be readily calculated from administrative claims data, is substantially reduced for many patients following hospitalization for HF and is highly correlated with traditional time-to-event mortality and hospitalization outcomes. Home-time represents a novel, easily measured, patient-centered endpoint that may reflect effectiveness of interventions in future HF studies.

Early Adoption of Sacubitril/Valsartan for Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Insights From Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence and variation in angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) prescription among a real-world population with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). BACKGROUND: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved sacubitril/valsartan for patients with HFrEF in July 2015. Little is known about the early patterns of use of this novel therapy. METHODS: The study included patients discharged alive from hospitals in Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF), a registry of hospitalized patients with heart failure, between July 2015 and June 2016 who had documentation of whether ARNIs were prescribed at discharge. Patient and hospital characteristics were compared among patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%) with and without ARNI prescription at discharge, excluding those with documented contraindications to ARNIs. To evaluate hospital variation, hospitals with at least 10 eligible hospitalizations during the study period were assessed. RESULTS: Of 21,078 patients hospitalized with HFrEF during the study period, 495 (2.3%) were prescribed ARNIs at discharge. Patients prescribed ARNIs were younger (median age 65 years vs. 70 years; p < 0.001), had lower ejection fractions (median 23% vs. 25%; p < 0.001), and had higher use of aldosterone antagonists (45% vs. 31%; p < 0.001) at discharge. At the 241 participating hospitals with 10 or more eligible admissions, 125 (52%) reported no discharge prescriptions of ARNIs. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 2.3% of patients hospitalized for HFrEF in a national registry were prescribed ARNI therapy in the first 12 months following Food and Drug Administration approval. Further study is needed to identify and overcome barriers to implementing new evidence into practice, such as ARNI use among eligible patients with HFrEF.

Trends in 30-Day Readmission Rates for Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure: Findings From the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry.

BACKGROUND: Reducing hospital readmissions for patients with heart failure is a national priority, and quality improvement campaigns are targeting reductions of ≥20%. However, there are limited data on whether such targets have been met. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed data from the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry linked to Medicare claims between 2009 and 2012 to describe trends and relative reduction of rates of 30-day all-cause readmission among patients with heart failure. A total of 21,264 patients with heart failure were included from 70 US sites from January 2009 to October 2012. Overall hospital-level, risk-adjusted, 30-day all-cause readmission rates declined slightly, from 20.0% (SD, 1.3%) in 2009 to 19.0% (SD, 1.2%) in 2012 (P=0.001). Only 1 in 70 (1.4%) hospitals achieved the 20% relative reduction in 30-day risk-adjusted readmission rates. A multivariable linear regression model was used to determine hospital-level factors associated with relative improvements in 30-day risk-adjusted readmissions between 2009 and 2012. Teaching hospitals had higher relative readmission rates as compared with their peers, and hospitals that used postdischarge heart failure disease management programs had lower relative readmission rates. CONCLUSIONS: Although there has been slight improvement in 30-day all-cause readmission rates during the past 4 years in patients with heart failure, few hospitals have seen large success.

Discharge heart rate and ß-blocker dose in patients hospitalized with heart failure: Findings from the OPTIMIZE-HF registry.

BACKGROUND: Elevated heart rate of ≥70 beats/min despite ß-blocker use may represent a new treatment target in patients in sinus rhythm with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, little is known about the proportion of patients with elevated heart rate despite ß-blocker therapy. METHODS: We analyzed data from a large clinical registry to describe discharge heart rate as a function of ß-blocker use and dose. We included patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <40% who were admitted with acute heart failure in 2003 and 2004; we excluded patients with a history of atrial arrhythmia or with a pacemaker or cardiac resynchronization therapy. We considered the ß-blockers carvedilol, metoprolol succinate, bisoprolol, atenolol, and metoprolol tartrate and described discharge dose as a percentage of target dose (ie, <25%, 25%-49%, 50%-99%, and ≥100%). RESULTS: Among 10,696 patients, median discharge heart rate was 76 beats/min (interquartile range [IQR] 66-86 beats/min). Of these, 7,826 (73%) were discharged on a ß-blocker. For patients not on a ß-blocker, median discharge heart rate was 80 beats/min (IQR 70-89 beats/min), compared with 78 beats/min (IQR 69-88 beats/min) on <25% of target dose, 75 beats/min (IQR 66-85 beats/min) on 25% to 49% of target dose, 74 beats/min (IQR 66-82 beats/min) on 50% to 99% of target dose, and 72 beats/min (IQR 65% to 80%) on 100% of target dose or greater (P < .001). Most patients, 7,647 (71%), had a discharge heart rate of ≥70 beats/min, including 1,460 (63%) of 2,301 patients discharged on 50% of target dose or greater. CONCLUSIONS: Despite treatment with ß-blockers, a substantial proportion of patients hospitalized with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction have elevated heart rate at discharge.