Gaps in Evidence-Based Therapy Use in Insured Patients in the United States With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

Background Evidence-based therapies are generally underused for cardiovascular risk reduction; however, less is known about contemporary patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Methods and Results Pharmacy and medical claims data from within Anthem were queried for patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Using an index date of April 18, 2018, we evaluated the proportion of patients with a prescription claim for any of the 3 evidence-based therapies on, or covering, the index date ±30 days: high-intensity statin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, and sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist. The potential benefit of achieving 100% adoption of all 3 evidence-based therapies was simulated using pooled treatment estimates from clinical trials. Of the 155 958 patients in the sample, 24.7% were using a high-intensity statin, 53.1% were using an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, and 9.9% were using either an sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Overall, only 2.7% of the population were covered by prescriptions for all 3 evidence-based therapies, and 37.4% were on none of them. Over a 12-month period, 70.6% of patients saw a cardiologist, while only 18% saw an endocrinologist. Increasing the use of evidence-based therapies to 100% over 3 years of treatment could be expected to reduce 4546 major atherosclerotic cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death) in eligible but untreated patients. Conclusions Alarming gaps exist in the contemporary use of evidence-based therapies in this large population of insured patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These data provide a call to action for patients, providers, industry, regulators, professional societies, and payers to close these gaps in care.

Major knowledge gaps and system barriers to guideline implementation among European physicians treating patients with atrial fibrillation: a European Society of Cardiology international educational needs assessment.

Aims: Guideline-adherent treatment is associated with improved prognosis in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients but is insufficiently implemented in clinical practice. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) performed a multinational educational needs assessment study among cardiologists, general practitioners/family physicians (GPs/FPs), and neurologists in order to evaluate knowledge and skills of physicians and system factors related to AF care delivery. Methods and results: A total of 561 physicians (294 cardiologists, 131 neurologists, and 136 GPs/FPs) from six European countries participated. This mixed-methods study included exploratory semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 30) and a quantitative survey that included two clinical cases (n = 531). We identified eight key knowledge gaps and system barriers across all domains of AF care. A majority across all specialties reported skills needing improvement to classify AF pathophysiologically, rather than based on duration of episodes, and reported lack of availability of long-term electrocardiogram recording. Skills interpreting the CHA2DS2-VASc and the HAS-BLED scores were reported as needing improvement by the majority of neurologists (52% and 60%, respectively) and GPs/FPs (65% and 74%). Cardiologists calculated the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores in 94%/70% in a presented case patient, but only 60%/49% of neurologists and 58%/42% of GPs/FPs did. There was much uncertainty on how to deal with anticoagulant therapy in complex patients. There was also a high disparity in using rate or rhythm control strategies, and indications for ablation. Information delivery to patients and communication between different specialties was often considered suboptimal, while national regulations and restrictions often hamper international guideline implementation. Conclusion: We identified major gaps in physicians' knowledge and skills across all domains of AF care, as well as system factors hampering guideline-compliant care implementation and communication. These gaps should be addressed by targeted educational and advocacy efforts.

Mind the Gap: Mismatches Between Clinicians and Patients in Heart Failure Medication Management.

PURPOSE: Previous studies on the 'treatment gap' in patients with heart failure (HF) have focused either on prescribing or patients' adherence to prescribed treatment. This study sought to determine whether or not recent initiatives to close the gap have also minimised any mismatches between physicians' expectation of their patients' medications, medications in the patients' possession and their actual medication use. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational survey was conducted from December 2015 to June 2016 in The Alfred Hospital HF clinic in Melbourne, Australia. Patients were invited to participate if they had chronic HF (NYHA class II to IV), were aged ≥ 60 years, had no history of HF related hospitalisation within the past 6 months and were prescribed at least two HF medications. RESULTS: Of 123 eligible patients, 102 were recruited into the study. Beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, loop diuretics and statins were associated with the highest rates of mismatches of drugs and doses, ranging from 10 to 17%. Discrepancy of total daily doses was the most common type of mismatch. Overall, only 23.5% of the patients were taking the right drugs at the right doses as expected by their cardiologists/HF specialists. CONCLUSIONS: Despite improved prescribers' adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy, there remain considerable mismatches between prescribers' expectation of patients' HF medications, medications in patients' possession and their actual medication use. Initiatives to improve this situation are urgently needed.

New horizons in the implementation and research of comprehensive geriatric assessment: knowing, doing and the 'know-do' gap.

In this paper, we outline the relationship between the need to put existing applied health research knowledge into practice (the 'know-do gap') and the need to improve the evidence base (the 'know gap') with respect to the healthcare process used for older people with frailty known as comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). We explore the reasons for the know-do gap and the principles of how these barriers to implementation might be overcome. We explore how these principles should affect the conduct of applied health research to close the know gap. We propose that impaired flow of knowledge is an important contributory factor in the failure to implement evidence-based practice in CGA; this could be addressed through specific knowledge mobilisation techniques. We describe that implementation failures are also produced by an inadequate evidence base that requires the co-production of research, addressing not only effectiveness but also the feasibility and acceptability of new services, the educational needs of practitioners, the organisational requirements of services, and the contribution made by policy. Only by tackling these issues in concert and appropriate proportion, will the know and know-do gaps for CGA be closed.

Solutions for filling gaps in accountable care measure sets.

OBJECTIVES: A primary objective of accountable care is to support providers in reforming care to improve outcomes and lower costs. Gaps in accountable care measure sets may cause missed opportunities for improvement and missed signals of problems in care. Measures to balance financial incentives may be particularly important for high-cost conditions or specialty treatments. This study explored gaps in measure sets for specific conditions and offers strategies for more comprehensive measurement that do not necessarily require more measures. STUDY DESIGN: A descriptive analysis of measure gaps in accountable care programs and proposed solutions for filling the gaps. METHODS: We analyzed gaps in 2 accountable care organization measure sets for 20 high-priority clinical conditions by comparing the measures in those sets with clinical guidelines and assessing the use of outcome measures. Where we identified gaps, we looked for existing measures to address the gaps. Gaps not addressed by existing measures were considered areas for measure development or measurement strategy refinement. RESULTS: We found measure gaps across all 20 conditions, including those conditions that are commonly addressed in current measure sets. In addition, we found many gaps that could not be filled by existing measures. Results across all 20 conditions informed recommendations for measure set improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing all gaps in accountable care measure sets with more of the same types of measures and approaches to measurement would require an impractical number of measures and would miss the opportunity to use better measures and innovative approaches. Strategies for effectively filling measure gaps include using preferred measure types such as cross-cutting, outcome, and patient-reported measures. Program implementers should also apply new approaches to measurement, including layered and modular models.