Barriers to Adoption of Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists in Patients With Heart Failure: A Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) are the most underutilized pharmacotherapy for heart failure. Minimal data are available on the barriers to MRA adoption from the perspective of prescribing clinicians. METHODS AND RESULTS: A mixed-methods study consisting of a survey (n=50), focus groups (n=39), interviews (n=6) with clinicians at a single US Department of Veterans Affairs medical center served to ascertain barriers to optimal use of MRAs. Participants were drawn from 6 groups: cardiology providers, cardiology fellows, hospitalists, clinical pharmacists, internal medicine residents, and primary care providers. Qualitative data were iteratively coded with qualitative data analysis software. The survey response rate was 17.3%. Overall, 51% of survey respondents were unfamiliar with eplerenone, and 6% were unfamiliar with spironolactone. In addition, 30% of respondents reported that they would order a laboratory test >2 weeks after a new MRA prescription, although that is beyond the guideline recommendation. Most providers correctly identified New York Heart Association class 3 and 4 patients as MRA eligible, but only 42% identified class 2 patients as MRA eligible. Through analysis of focus groups, we identified 8 barriers to MRA use in 3 categories: patient-based barriers (concerns about polypharmacy and comorbidities, adverse effects, perceived patient nonadherence), provider-based barriers (unclear roles and responsibilities, coordination and transitions of care, lack of experience or familiarity with MRAs), and system-based barriers (system overload and provider time constraints, lack of systematic follow-up procedures). CONCLUSIONS: Eight primary barriers to MRA adoption at the provider, patient, and health system levels were identified from the prescriber perspective. These barriers can inform the creation of multilevel interventions that will be required to close the gap in MRA adoption.

Safety and benefit of discontinuing statin therapy in the setting of advanced, life-limiting illness: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: For patients with limited prognosis, some medication risks may outweigh the benefits, particularly when benefits take years to accrue; statins are one example. Data are lacking regarding the risks and benefits of discontinuing statin therapy for patients with limited life expectancy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, clinical, and cost impact of discontinuing statin medications for patients in the palliative care setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a multicenter, parallel-group, unblinded, pragmatic clinical trial. Eligibility included adults with an estimated life expectancy of between 1 month and 1 year, statin therapy for 3 months or more for primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, recent deterioration in functional status, and no recent active cardiovascular disease. Participants were randomized to either discontinue or continue statin therapy and were monitored monthly for up to 1 year. The study was conducted from June 3, 2011, to May 2, 2013. All analyses were performed using an intent-to-treat approach. INTERVENTIONS: Statin therapy was withdrawn from eligible patients who were randomized to the discontinuation group. Patients in the continuation group continued to receive statins. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes included death within 60 days (primary outcome), survival, cardiovascular events, performance status, quality of life (QOL), symptoms, number of nonstatin medications, and cost savings. RESULTS: A total of 381 patients were enrolled; 189 of these were randomized to discontinue statins, and 192 were randomized to continue therapy. Mean (SD) age was 74.1 (11.6) years, 22.0% of the participants were cognitively impaired, and 48.8% had cancer. The proportion of participants in the discontinuation vs continuation groups who died within 60 days was not significantly different (23.8% vs 20.3%; 90% CI, -3.5% to 10.5%; P=.36) and did not meet the noninferiority end point. Total QOL was better for the group discontinuing statin therapy (mean McGill QOL score, 7.11 vs 6.85; P=.04). Few participants experienced cardiovascular events (13 in the discontinuation group vs 11 in the continuation group). Mean cost savings were $3.37 per day and $716 per patient. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This pragmatic trial suggests that stopping statin medication therapy is safe and may be associated with benefits including improved QOL, use of fewer nonstatin medications, and a corresponding reduction in medication costs. Thoughtful patient-provider discussions regarding the uncertain benefit and potential decrement in QOL associated with statin continuation in this setting are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01415934.

Comparing unmet needs between community-based palliative care patients with heart failure and patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: As the role of palliative care (PC) has yet to be clearly defined in patients with heart failure (HF), such patients may face barriers regarding PC referral. In order to maximally meet the needs of HF patients, it is necessary to understand how they compare to the classic PC population: patients with cancer. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the unresolved symptom and treatment needs with which patients with HF and those with cancer present to PC. METHODS: We used data from the Palliative Care Research Registry (PCRR), a repository of quality improvement data from three community-based PC organizations. We abstracted first PC visit data from the PCRR for patients with primary diagnoses of HF or cancer seen between 2008 and 2012. We assessed the association of primary diagnosis (i.e., HF or cancer) on three outcomes: unresolved symptoms, treatment gaps, and a composite indicator of symptom control and quality of life. Analyses included descriptive statistics and multivariate Poisson regression. RESULTS: Our analytic sample comprised 334 patients with HF and 697 patients with cancer, the majority of whom were white and male. Compared to patients with cancer, patients with HF presented with fewer unresolved symptoms, both overall and at moderate/severe distress levels. Patients with HF more commonly reported moderately/severely distressful dyspnea (25% versus 18%, p=0.02), and more commonly experienced dyspnea-related treatment gaps (17% versus 8%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HF possess care needs that are squarely within the purview of PC. Future work is needed to delineate how PC referral policies should be refined to optimize PC access for patients with HF.

"Not the 'grim reaper service'": an assessment of provider knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions regarding palliative care referral barriers in heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Although similar to cancer patients regarding symptom burden and prognosis, patients with heart failure (HF) tend to receive palliative care far less frequently. We sought to explore factors perceived by cardiology, primary care, and palliative care providers to impede palliative care referral for HF patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted semistructured interviews regarding (1) perceived needs of patients with advanced HF; (2) knowledge, attitudes, and experiences with specialist palliative care; (3) perceived indications for and optimal timing of palliative care referral in HF; and (4) perceived barriers to palliative care referral. Two investigators analyzed data using template analysis, a qualitative technique. We interviewed 18 physician, nurse practitioner, and physician assistant providers from 3 specialties: cardiology, primary care, and palliative care. Providers had limited knowledge regarding what palliative care is, and how it can complement traditional HF therapy to decrease HF-related suffering. Interviews identified several potential barriers: the unpredictable course of HF; lack of clear referral triggers across the HF trajectory; and ambiguity regarding what differentiates standard HF therapy from palliative care. Nevertheless, providers expressed interest for integrating palliative care into traditional HF care, but were unsure of how to initiate collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative care referral for HF patients may be suboptimal due to limited provider knowledge and misperceptions of palliative care as a service reserved for those near death. These factors represent potentially modifiable targets for provider education, which may help to improve palliative care referral for HF patients with unresolved disease-related burden.

Preferences of people with advanced heart failure-a structured narrative literature review to inform decision making in the palliative care setting.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND AND APPROACH: There is a growing emphasis on the need for high-quality and patient-centered palliative care for patients with heart failure (HF) near end of life. Accordingly, clinicians require adequate knowledge of patient values and preferences, but this topic has been underreported in the HF literature. In response, we conducted a structured narrative review of available evidence regarding patient preferences for HF care near end of life, focusing on circumstances of death, advance care planning, and preferences for specific HF therapies. RESULTS: Patients had widely varying preferences for sudden ("unaware") death versus a death that was anticipated ("aware"), which would allow time to make arrangements and time with family; preferences influenced their choice of HF therapies. Patients and physicians rarely discussed advance care planning; physicians were rarely aware of resuscitation preferences. Advance care planning discussions rarely included preferences for limiting implantable cardioverter defibrillator use, and patients were often uninformed of the option of implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation. A substantial minority of patients strongly preferred improved quality of life versus extended survival, but preferences of individuals could not be easily predicted. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence regarding preferences of patients with HF near end of life suggests substantial opportunities for improvement of end-of-life HF care. Most notably, the wide distribution of patient preferences highlights the need to tailor approach to patient wishes, avoiding assumptions of patient wishes. A research agenda and implications for health care provider training are proposed.