Sex Disparities in Longitudinal Use and Intensification of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy Among Patients With Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) are the mainstay of treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but they are underused. Whether sex differences exist in the initiation and intensification of GDMT for newly diagnosed HFrEF is not well established. METHODS: Patients with incident HFrEF were identified from the 2016 to 2020 Optum deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database, which is derived from a database of administrative health claims for members of large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans. The primary outcome was the use of optimal GDMT within 12 months of HFrEF diagnosis. Consistent with the guideline recommendations during the time period of the study, optimal GDMT was defined as ≥50% of the target dose of evidence-based beta-blocker plus ≥50% of the target dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, or any dose of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor plus any dose of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. The probability of achieving optimal GDMT on follow-up and predictors of optimal GDMT were evaluated with time-to-event analysis with adjusted Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: The study cohort included 63 759 patients (mean age, 71.3 years; 15.2% non-Hispanic Black race; 56.6% male). Optimal GDMT use was achieved by 6.2% of patients at 12 months after diagnosis. Female (compared with male) patients with HFrEF had lower use across every GDMT class and lower use of optimal GDMT at each time point at follow-up. In an adjusted Cox model, female sex was associated with a 23% lower probability of achieving optimal GDMT after diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.71-0.83]; P<0.001). The sex disparities in GDMT use after HFrEF diagnosis were most pronounced among patients with commercial insurance (females compared with males; HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.58-0.76]) compared with Medicare (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.77-0.92]); Pinteraction sex×insurance status=0.005) and for younger patients (age <65 years: HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.58-0.74]) compared with older patients (age ≥65 years: HR, 87 [95% CI, 80-96]) Pinteraction sex×age=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Overall use of optimal GDMT after HFrEF diagnosis was low, with significantly lower use among female (compared with male) patients. These findings highlight the need for implementation efforts directed at improving GDMT initiation and titration.

Effect of chair placement on physicians' behavior and patients' satisfaction: randomized deception trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of chair placement on length of time physicians sit during a bedside consultation and patients' satisfaction. DESIGN: Single center, double blind, randomized controlled deception trial. SETTING: County hospital in Texas, USA. PARTICIPANTS: 51 hospitalist physicians providing direct care services, and 125 observed encounters of patients who could answer four orientation questions correctly before study entry, April 2022 to February 2023. INTERVENTION: Each patient encounter was randomized to either chair placement (≤3 feet (0.9 m) of patient's bedside and facing the bed) or usual chair location (control). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the binary decision of the physician to sit or not sit at any point during a patient encounter. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, as assessed with the Tool to Assess Inpatient Satisfaction with Care from Hospitalists (TAISCH) and the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) surveys, time in the room, and both physicians' and patients' perception of time in the room. RESULTS: 125 patient encounters were randomized (60 to chair placement and 65 to control). 38 of the 60 physicians in the chair placement group sat during the patient encounter compared with five of the 65 physicians in the control group (odds ratio 20.7, 95% confidence interval 7.2 to 59.4; P<0.001). The absolute risk difference between the intervention and control groups was 0.55 (95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.69). Overall, 1.8 chairs needed to be placed for a physician to sit. Intervention was associated with 3.9% greater TAISCH scores (effect estimate 3.9, 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 7.0; P=0.01) and 5.1 greater odds of complete scores on HCAHPS (95% confidence interval 1.06 to 24.9, P=0.04). Chair placement was not associated with time spent in the room (10.6 minutes v control 10.6 minutes) nor perception of time in the room for physicians (9.4 minutes v 9.8 minutes) or patients (13.1 minutes v 13.5 minutes). CONCLUSION: Chair placement is a simple, no cost, low tech intervention that increases a physician's likelihood of sitting during a bedside consultation and resulted in higher patients' scores for both satisfaction and communication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05250778.