Automated Software System to Promote Anticoagulation and Reduce Stroke Risk: Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Oral anticoagulants (OAC) substantially reduce risk of stroke in atrial fibrillation, but uptake is suboptimal. Electronic health records enable automated identification of people at risk but not receiving treatment. We investigated the effectiveness of a software tool (AURAS-AF [Automated Risk Assessment for Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation]) designed to identify such individuals during routine care through a cluster-randomized trial. METHODS: Screen reminders appeared each time the electronic health records of an eligible patient was accessed until a decision had been taken over OAC treatment. Where OAC was not started, clinicians were prompted to indicate a reason. Control practices continued usual care. The primary outcome was the proportion of eligible individuals receiving OAC at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included rates of cardiovascular events and reports of adverse effects of the software on clinical decision-making. RESULTS: Forty-seven practices were randomized. The mean proportion-prescribed OAC at 6 months was 66.3% (SD=9.3) in the intervention arm and 63.9% (9.5) in the control arm (adjusted difference 1.21% [95% confidence interval -0.72 to 3.13]). Incidence of recorded transient ischemic attack was higher in the intervention practices (median 10.0 versus 2.3 per 1000 patients with atrial fibrillation; P=0.027), but at 12 months, we found a lower incidence of both all cause stroke (P=0.06) and hemorrhage (P=0.054). No adverse effects of the software were reported. CONCLUSIONS: No significant change in OAC prescribing occurred. A greater rate of diagnosis of transient ischemic attack (possibly because of improved detection or overdiagnosis) was associated with a reduction (of borderline significance) in stroke and hemorrhage over 12 months. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.isrctn.com. Unique Identifier: ISRCTN55722437.

B-type natriuretic peptide-guided treatment for heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a condition in which the heart does not pump enough blood to meet all the needs of the body. Symptoms of heart failure include breathlessness, fatigue and fluid retention. Outcomes for patients with heart failure are highly variable; however on average, these patients have a poor prognosis. Prognosis can be improved with early diagnosis and appropriate use of medical treatment, use of devices and transplantation. Patients with heart failure are high users of healthcare resources, not only due to drug and device treatments, but due to high costs of hospitalisation care. B-type natriuretic peptide levels are already used as biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis of heart failure, but could offer to clinicians a possible tool to guide drug treatment. This could optimise drug management in heart failure patients whilst allaying concerns over potential side effects due to drug intolerance. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether treatment guided by serial BNP or NT-proBNP (collectively referred to as NP) monitoring improves outcomes compared with treatment guided by clinical assessment alone. SEARCH METHODS: Searches were conducted up to 15 March 2016 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database in the Cochrane Library. Searches were also conducted in the Science Citation Index Expanded, the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov. We applied no date or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of NP-guided treatment of heart failure versus treatment guided by clinical assessment alone with no restriction on follow-up. Adults treated for heart failure, in both in-hospital and out-of-hospital settings, and trials reporting a clinical outcome were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for dichotomous data, and pooled mean differences (MD) (with 95% confidence intervals (CI)) were calculated for continuous data. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 randomised controlled trials with 3660 participants (range of mean age: 57 to 80 years) comparing NP-guided treatment with clinical assessment alone. The evidence for all-cause mortality using NP-guided treatment showed uncertainty (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.01; patients = 3169; studies = 15; low quality of the evidence), and for heart failure mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30; patients = 853; studies = 6; low quality of evidence).The evidence suggested heart failure admission was reduced by NP-guided treatment (38% versus 26%, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; patients = 1928; studies = 10; low quality of evidence), but the evidence showed uncertainty for all-cause admission (57% versus 53%, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; patients = 1142; studies = 6; low quality of evidence).Six studies reported on adverse events, however the results could not be pooled (patients = 1144; low quality of evidence). Only four studies provided cost of treatment results, three of these studies reported a lower cost for NP-guided treatment, whilst one reported a higher cost (results were not pooled; patients = 931, low quality of evidence). The evidence showed uncertainty for quality of life data (MD -0.03, 95% CI -1.18 to 1.13; patients = 1812; studies = 8; very low quality of evidence).We completed a 'Risk of bias' assessment for all studies. The impact of risk of bias from lack of blinding of outcome assessment and high attrition levels was examined by restricting analyses to only low 'Risk of bias' studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure low-quality evidence showed a reduction in heart failure admission with NP-guided treatment while low-quality evidence showed uncertainty in the effect of NP-guided treatment for all-cause mortality, heart failure mortality, and all-cause admission. Uncertainty in the effect was further shown by very low-quality evidence for patient's quality of life. The evidence for adverse events and cost of treatment was low quality and we were unable to pool results.

Are journal clubs effective in supporting evidence-based decision making? A systematic review. BEME Guide No. 16.

BACKGROUND: Journal clubs (JCs) are a common form of interactive education in health care aiming to promote the uptake of research evidence into practice, but their effectiveness has not been established. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to determine whether the JC is an effective intervention in supporting clinical decision making. METHODS: We searched for studies which evaluated whether clubs promote changes in learner reaction, attitudes, knowledge, skills, behaviour or patient outcomes. We included undergraduate, postgraduate and practice JCs and excluded studies evaluating video/internet meetings or single meetings. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included. Studies reported improvements in reading behaviour (N = 5/11), confidence in critical appraisal (N = 7/7), critical appraisal test scores (N = 5/7) and ability to use findings (N = 5/7). No studies reported on patient outcomes. Sixteen studies used self-reported measures, but only four studies used validated tests. Interventions were too heterogeneous to allow pooling. Realist synthesis identified potentially 'active educational ingredients', including mentoring, brief training in clinical epidemiology, structured critical appraisal tools, adult-learning principles, multifaceted teaching approaches and integration of the JC with other clinical and academic activities. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of JCs in supporting evidence-based decision making is not clear. Better reporting of the intervention and a mixed methods approach to evaluating active ingredients are needed in order to understand how JCs may support evidence-based practice.

Barriers to a software reminder system for risk assessment of stroke in atrial fibrillation: a process evaluation of a cluster randomised trial in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulants reduce the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but are underused. AURAS-AF (AUtomated Risk Assessment for Stroke in AF) is a software tool designed to identify eligible patients and promote discussions within consultations about initiating anticoagulants. AIM: To investigate the implementation of the software in UK general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Process evaluation involving 23 practices randomly allocated to use AURAS-AF during a cluster randomised trial. METHOD: An initial invitation to discuss anticoagulation was followed by screen reminders appearing during consultations until a decision had been made. The reminders required responses, giving reasons for cases where an anticoagulant was not initiated. Qualitative interviews with clinicians and patients explored acceptability and usability. RESULTS: In a sample of 476 patients eligible for the invitation letter, only 159 (33.4%) were considered suitable for invitation by their GPs. Reasons given were frequently based on frailty, and risk of falls or haemorrhage. Of those invited, 35 (22%) started an anticoagulant (7.4% of those originally identified). A total of 1695 main-screen reminders occurred in 940 patients. In 883 instances, the decision was taken not to initiate and a range of reasons offered. Interviews with 15 patients and seven clinicians indicated that the intervention was acceptable, though the issue of disruptive screen reminders was raised. CONCLUSION: Automated risk assessment for stroke in atrial fibrillation and prompting during consultations are feasible and generally acceptable, but did not overcome concerns about frailty and risk of haemorrhage as barriers to anticoagulant uptake.

Triage tests for identifying atrial fibrillation in primary care: a diagnostic accuracy study comparing single-lead ECG and modified BP monitors.

OBJECTIVE: New electronic devices offer an opportunity within routine primary care settings for improving the detection of atrial fibrillation (AF), which is a common cardiac arrhythmia and a modifiable risk factor for stroke. We aimed to assess the performance of a modified blood pressure (BP) monitor and two single-lead ECG devices, as diagnostic triage tests for the detection of AF. SETTING: 6 General Practices in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 1000 ambulatory patients aged 75 years and over. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparative diagnostic accuracy of modified BP monitor and single-lead ECG devices, compared to reference standard of 12-lead ECG, independently interpreted by cardiologists. RESULTS: A total of 79 participants (7.9%) had AF diagnosed by 12-lead ECG. All three devices had a high sensitivity (93.9-98.7%) and are useful for ruling out AF. WatchBP is a better triage test than Omron autoanalysis because it is more specific-89.7% (95% CI 87.5% to 91.6%) compared to 78.3% (95% CI 73.0% to 82.9%), respectively. This would translate into a lower follow-on ECG rate of 17% to rule in/rule out AF compared to 29.7% with the Omron text message in the study population. The overall specificity of single-lead ECGs analysed by a cardiologist was 94.6% for Omron and 90.1% for Merlin. CONCLUSIONS: WatchBP performs better as a triage test for identifying AF in primary care than the single-lead ECG monitors as it does not require expertise for interpretation and its diagnostic performance is comparable to single-lead ECG analysis by cardiologists. It could be used opportunistically to screen elderly patients for undiagnosed AF at regular intervals and/or during BP measurement.

Clinical prediction rules in practice: review of clinical guidelines and survey of GPs.

BACKGROUND: The publication of clinical prediction rules (CPRs) studies has risen significantly. It is unclear if this reflects increasing usage of these tools in clinical practice or how this may vary across clinical areas. AIM: To review clinical guidelines in selected areas and survey GPs in order to explore CPR usefulness in the opinion of experts and use at the point of care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A review of clinical guidelines and survey of UK GPs. METHOD: Clinical guidelines in eight clinical domains with published CPRs were reviewed for recommendations to use CPRs including primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and stroke, diabetes mellitus, fracture risk assessment in osteoporosis, lower limb fractures, breast cancer, depression, and acute infections in childhood. An online survey of 401 UK GPs was also conducted. RESULTS: Guideline review: Of 7637 records screened by title and/or abstract, 243 clinical guidelines met inclusion criteria. CPRs were most commonly recommended in guidelines regarding primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (67%) and depression (67%). There was little consensus across various clinical guidelines as to which CPR to use preferentially. SURVEY: Of 401 responders to the GP survey, most were aware of and applied named CPRs in the clinical areas of cardiovascular disease and depression. The commonest reasons for using CPRs were to guide management and conform to local policy requirements. CONCLUSION: GPs use CPRs to guide management but also to comply with local policy requirements. Future research could focus on which clinical areas clinicians would most benefit from CPRs and promoting the use of robust, externally validated CPRs.

Automated Risk Assessment for Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation (AURAS-AF)--an automated software system to promote anticoagulation and reduce stroke risk: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are at significantly increased risk of stroke. Oral anticoagulants (OACs) substantially reduce this risk, with gains seen across the spectrum of baseline risk. Despite the benefit to patients, OAC prescribing remains suboptimal in the United Kingdom (UK). We will investigate whether an automated software system, operating within primary care electronic medical records, can improve the management of AF by identifying patients eligible for OAC therapy and increasing uptake of this treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial, involving general practices using the Egton Medical Information Systems (EMIS) Web clinical system. We will randomise practices to use an electronic software tool or to continue with usual care. The tool will a) produce (and continually refresh) a list of patients with AF who are eligible for OAC therapy--practices will invite these patients to discuss therapy at the start of the trial--and b) generate electronic screen reminders in the medical records of those eligible, appearing throughout the trial. The software will run for 6 months in 23 intervention practices. A total of 23 control practices will manage their AF register in line with the usual care offered. The primary outcome is change in proportion of eligible patients with AF who have been prescribed OAC therapy after six months. Secondary outcomes are incidence of stroke, transient ischaemic attack, other major thromboembolism, major haemorrhage and reports of inappropriate OAC prescribing in the data collection sample--those deemed eligible for OACs. We will conduct a process evaluation in parallel with the randomised trial. We will use qualitative methods to examine patient and practitioner views of the intervention and its impact on primary care practice, including its time implications. DISCUSSION: AURAS-AF will investigate whether a simple intervention, using electronic primary care records, can improve OAC uptake in a high risk group for stroke. Given previous concerns about safety, especially surrounding inappropriate prescribing, we will also examine whether electronic reminders safely impact care in this clinical area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://ISRCTN 55722437.