Clinical Impact of Routine Assessment of Patient-Reported Health Status in Heart Failure Clinic: The PRO-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of routine clinic use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures on clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) has not been well-characterized. We tested if clinic-based use of a disease-specific PRO improves patient-reported quality of life at 1 year. METHODS: The PRO-HF trial (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Heart Failure Clinic) was an open-label, parallel, patient-level randomized clinical trial of routine PRO assessment or usual care at an academic HF clinic between August 30, 2021, and June 30, 2022, with 1 year of follow-up. In the PRO assessment arm, participants completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) at each HF clinic visit, and results were shared with their treating clinician. The usual care arm completed the KCCQ-12 at randomization and 1 year later, which was not shared with the treating clinician. The primary outcome was the KCCQ-12 overall summary score (OSS) between 12 and 15 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes included domains of the KCCQ-12, hospitalization and emergency department visit rates, HF medication therapy, clinic visit frequency, and testing rates. RESULTS: Across 17 clinicians, 1248 participants were enrolled and randomized to PRO assessment (n=624) or usual care (n=624). The median age was 63.9 years (interquartile range [IQR], 51.8-72.8), 38.9% were women, and the median baseline KCCQ-12 OSS was 82.3 (IQR, 58.3-94.8). Final KCCQ-12 (available in 87.9% of the PRO arm and 85.1% in usual care; P=0.16) median OSS were 87.5 (IQR, 68.8-96.9) in the PRO arm and 87.6 (IQR, 69.7-96.9) in the usual care arm with a baseline-adjusted mean difference of 0.2 ([95% CI, -1.7 to 2.0]; P=0.85). The results were consistent across prespecified subgroups. A post hoc analysis demonstrated a significant interaction with greater benefit among participants with a baseline KCCQ-12 OSS of 60 to 80 but not in less or more symptomatic participants. No significant differences were found in 1-year mortality, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, medication therapy, clinic follow-up, or testing rates between arms. CONCLUSIONS: Routine PRO assessment in HF clinic visits did not impact patient-reported quality of life or other clinical outcomes. Alternate strategies and settings for embedding PROs into routine clinical care should be tested. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

Atherosclerosis evaluation and cardiovascular risk estimation using coronary computed tomography angiography.

Clinical risk scores based on traditional risk factors of atherosclerosis correlate imprecisely to an individual's complex pathophysiological predisposition to atherosclerosis and provide limited accuracy for predicting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Over the past two decades, computed tomography scanners and techniques for coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) analysis have substantially improved, enabling more precise atherosclerotic plaque quantification and characterization. The accuracy of CCTA for quantifying stenosis and atherosclerosis has been validated in numerous multicentre studies and has shown consistent incremental prognostic value for MACE over the clinical risk spectrum in different populations. Serial CCTA studies have advanced our understanding of vascular biology and atherosclerotic disease progression. The direct disease visualization of CCTA has the potential to be used synergistically with indirect markers of risk to significantly improve prevention of MACE, pending large-scale randomized evaluation.

Incidental Coronary Artery Calcium: Opportunistic Screening of Previous Nongated Chest Computed Tomography Scans to Improve Statin Rates (NOTIFY-1 Project).

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery calcium (CAC) can be identified on nongated chest computed tomography (CT) scans, but this finding is not consistently incorporated into care. A deep learning algorithm enables opportunistic CAC screening of nongated chest CT scans. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of notifying clinicians and patients of incidental CAC on statin initiation. METHODS: NOTIFY-1 (Incidental Coronary Calcification Quality Improvement Project) was a randomized quality improvement project in the Stanford Health Care System. Patients without known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or a previous statin prescription were screened for CAC on a previous nongated chest CT scan from 2014 to 2019 using a validated deep learning algorithm with radiologist confirmation. Patients with incidental CAC were randomly assigned to notification of the primary care clinician and patient versus usual care. Notification included a patient-specific image of CAC and guideline recommendations regarding statin use. The primary outcome was statin prescription within 6 months. RESULTS: Among 2113 patients who met initial clinical inclusion criteria, CAC was identified by the algorithm in 424 patients. After chart review and additional exclusions were made, a radiologist confirmed CAC among 173 of 194 patients (89.2%) who were randomly assigned to notification or usual care. At 6 months, the statin prescription rate was 51.2% (44/86) in the notification arm versus 6.9% (6/87) with usual care (P<0.001). There was also more coronary artery disease testing in the notification arm (15.1% [13/86] versus 2.3% [2/87]; P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Opportunistic CAC screening of previous nongated chest CT scans followed by clinician and patient notification led to a significant increase in statin prescriptions. Further research is needed to determine whether this approach can reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04789278.

Value-Based Payment for Clinicians Treating Cardiovascular Disease: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association.

Clinician payment is transitioning from fee-for-service to value-based payment, with reimbursement tied to health care quality and cost. However, the overarching goals of value-based payment-to improve health care quality, lower costs, or both-have been largely unmet. This policy statement reviews the current state of value-based payment and provides recommended best practices for future design and implementation. The policy statement is divided into sections that detail different aspects of value-based payment: (1) key program design features (patient population, quality measurement, cost measurement, and risk adjustment), (2) the role of equity during design and evaluation, (3) adjustment of payment, and (4) program implementation and evaluation. Each section introduces the topic, describes important considerations, and lists examples from existing programs. Each section includes recommended best practices for future program design. The policy statement highlights 4 key themes for successful value-based payment. First, programs should carefully weigh the incentives between lowering cost and improving quality of care and ensure that there is adequate focus on quality of care. Second, the expansion of value-based payment should be a tool for improving equity, which is central to quality of care and should be a focal point of program design and evaluation. Third, value-based payment should continue to move away from fee for service toward more flexible funding that allows clinicians to focus resources on the interventions that best help patients. Last, successful programs should find ways to channel clinicians' intrinsic motivation to improve their performance and the care for their patients. These principles should guide the future development of clinician value-based payment models.

Uptake of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors in Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure: Insights From the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: The use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in Veterans Affairs (VA) patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) has not been reported previously. METHODS: VA electronic health record data were used to identify patients hospitalized for HF (primary or secondary diagnosis) from 01/2019-11/2022. Patients with SGLT2i allergy, advanced/end-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) or advanced HF therapies were excluded. We identified factors associated with discharge SGLT2i prescriptions for patients hospitalized due to HF in 2022. We also compared SGLT2i and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) prescription rates. Hospital-level variations in SGLT2i prescriptions were assessed via the median odds ratio. RESULTS: A total of 69,680 patients were hospitalized due to HF; 10.3% were prescribed SGLT2i at discharge (4.4% newly prescribed, 5.9% continued preadmission therapy). SGLT2i prescription increased over time and was higher in patients with HFrEF and primary HF. Among 15,762 patients hospitalized in 2022, SGLT2i prescription was more likely in patients with diabetes (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.09-2.47) and ischemic heart disease (aOR 1.14; 95% CI: 1.03-1.26). Patients with increased age (aOR 0.77 per 10 years; 95% CI: 0.73-0.80) and lower systolic blood pressure (aOR 0.94 per 10 mmHg; 95% CI: 0.92-0.96) were less likely to be prescribed SGLT2i, and SGLT2i prescription was not more likely in patients with CKD (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.98-1.16). The adjusted median odds ratio suggested a 1.8-fold variation in the likelihood that similar patients at 2 random VA sites were prescribed SGLT2i (range 0-21.0%). In patients with EF ≤ 40%, 30.9% were prescribed SGLT2i while 26.9% were prescribed ARNI (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: One-tenth of VA patients hospitalized for HF were prescribed SGLT2i at discharge. Opportunities exist to reduce variation in SGLT2i prescription rates across hospitals and to promote its use in patients with CKD and older age.

Sex-Based Differences in the Epidemiology, Clinical Characteristics, and Outcomes Associated with Worsening Heart Failure Events in a Learning Health System.

BACKGROUND: Differences in demographics, risk factors, and clinical characteristics may contribute to variations in men and women in terms of the prevalence, clinical setting, and outcomes associated with worsening heart failure (WHF) events. We sought to describe sex-based differences in the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and outcomes associated with WHF events across clinical settings. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined adults diagnosed with HF from 2010 to 2019 within a large, integrated health care delivery system. Electronic health record data were accessed for hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits and observation stays, and outpatient encounters. WHF was identified using validated natural language processing algorithms and defined as ≥1 symptom, ≥2 objective findings (including ≥1 sign), and ≥1 change in HF-related therapy. Incidence rates and associated outcomes for WHF were compared across care setting by sex. We identified 1,122,368 unique clinical encounters with a diagnosis code for HF, with 124,479 meeting WHF criteria. These WHF encounters existed among 102,116 patients, of whom 48,543 (47.5%) were women and 53,573 (52.5%) were men. Women experiencing WHF were older and more likely to have HF with preserved ejection fraction compared with men. The clinical settings of WHF were similar among women and men: hospitalizations (36.8% vs 37.7%), ED visits or observation stays (11.8% vs 13.4%), and outpatient encounters (4.4% vs 4.9%). Women had lower odds of 30-day mortality after an index hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.83-0.93) or ED visit or observation stay (adjusted odds ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.75-0.98) for WHF. CONCLUSIONS: Women and men contribute similarly to WHF events across diverse clinical settings despite marked differences in age and left ventricular ejection fraction.

Heart failure medical therapy prior to mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair: the STS/ACC Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is recommended before mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (MTEER) in patients with heart failure (HF) and severe functional mitral regurgitation (FMR). Whether MTEER is being performed on the background of optimal GDMT in clinical practice is unknown. METHODS: Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% who underwent MTEER for FMR from 23 July 2019 to 31 March 2022 in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry were identified. Pre-procedure GDMT utilization was assessed. Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to evaluate associations between pre-MTEER therapy (no/single, double, or triple therapy) and risk of 1-year mortality or HF hospitalization (HFH). RESULTS: Among 4199 patients across 449 sites, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors were used in 85.1%, 44.4%, 28.6%, and 19.9% before MTEER, respectively. Triple therapy was prescribed for 19.2%, double therapy for 38.2%, single therapy for 36.0%, and 6.5% were on no GDMT. Significant centre-level variation in the proportion of patients on pre-intervention triple therapy was observed (0%-61%; adjusted median odds ratio 1.48 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-3.88]; P < .001). In patients eligible for 1-year follow-up (n = 2014; 341 sites), the composite rate of 1-year mortality or HFH was lowest in patients prescribed triple therapy (23.0%) compared with double (24.8%), single (35.7%), and no (41.1%) therapy (P < .01 comparing across groups). Associations persisted after accounting for relevant clinical characteristics, with lower risk in patients prescribed triple therapy [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.73, 95% CI .55-.97] and double therapy (aHR 0.69, 95% CI .56-.86) before MTEER compared with no/single therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Under one-fifth of patients with LVEF <50% who underwent MTEER for FMR in this US nationwide registry were prescribed comprehensive GDMT, with substantial variation across sites. Compared with no/single therapy, triple and double therapy before MTEER were independently associated with reduced risk of mortality or HFH 1 year after intervention.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Pharmacist- and Nurse-Led Medical Optimization in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Traditional approaches to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) management often lead to delayed initiation and titration of therapies in patients with heart failure. This study sought to characterize alternative models of care involving nonphysician provider-led GDMT interventions and their associations with therapy use and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing nonphysician provider-led GDMT initiation and/or uptitration interventions vs usual physician care (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022334661). We queried PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform for peer-reviewed studies from database inception to July 31, 2022. In the meta-analysis, we used RCT data only and leveraged random-effects models to estimate pooled outcomes. Primary outcomes were GDMT initiation and titration to target dosages by therapeutic class. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations. RESULTS: We reviewed 33 studies, of which 17 (52%) were randomized controlled trials with median follow-ups of 6 months; 14 (82%) trials evaluated nurse interventions, and the remainder assessed pharmacists' interventions. The primary analysis pooled data from 16 RCTs, which enrolled 5268 patients. Pooled risk ratios (RR) for renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI) and beta-blocker initiation were 2.09 (95% CI 1.05-4.16; I2 = 68%) and 1.91 (95% CI1.35-2.70; I2 = 37%), respectively. Outcomes were similar for uptitration of RASI (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.24-3.20; I2 = 77%) and beta-blocker (RR 2.22, 95% CI 1.29-3.83; I2 = 66%). No association was found with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist initiation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.47-2.19). There were lower rates of mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67-1.04; I2 = 12%) and hospitalization due to HF (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63-1.01; I2 = 25%) across intervention arms, but these differences were small and not statistically significant. Prediction intervals were wide due to moderate-to-high heterogeneity across trial populations and interventions. Subgroup analyses by provider type did not show significant effect modification. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist- and nurse-led interventions for GDMT initiation and/or uptitration improved guideline concordance. Further research evaluating newer therapies and titration strategies integrated with pharmacist- and/or nurse-based care may be valuable.

ACC/AHA/ASE/ASNC/ASPC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2023 Multimodality Appropriate Use Criteria for the Detection and Risk Assessment of Chronic Coronary Disease.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) Foundation, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriate use review of stress testing and anatomic diagnostic procedures for risk assessment and evaluation of known or suspected chronic coronary disease (CCD), formerly referred to as stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). This document reflects an updating of the prior Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) published for radionuclide imaging, stress echocardiography (echo), calcium scoring, coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), and invasive coronary angiography for SIHD. This is in keeping with the commitment to revise and refine the AUC on a frequent basis. As with the prior version of this document, rating of test modalities is provided side-by-side for a given clinical scenario. These ratings are explicitly not considered competitive rankings due to the limited availability of comparative evidence, patient variability, and the range of capabilities available in any given local setting1-4.This version of the AUC for CCD is a focused update of the prior version of the AUC for SIHD4. Key changes beyond the updated ratings based on new evidence include the following: 1. Clinical scenarios related to preoperative testing were removed and will be incorporated into another AUC document under development. 2. Some clinical scenarios and tables were removed in an effort to simplify the selection of clinical scenarios. Additionally, the flowchart of tables has been reorganized, and all clinical scenario tables can now be reached by answering a limited number of clinical questions about the patient, starting with the patient's symptom status. 3. Several clinical scenarios have been revised to incorporate changes in other documents such as pretest probability assessment, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk assessment, syncope, and others. ASCVD risk factors that are not accounted for in contemporary risk calculators have been added as modifiers to certain clinical scenarios. The 64 clinical scenarios rated in this document are limited to the detection and risk assessment of CCD and were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines.5 These clinical scenarios do not specifically address patients having acute chest pain episodes. They may, however, be applicable in the inpatient setting if the patient is not having an acute coronary syndrome and warrants evaluation for CCD.Using standardized methodology, clinical scenarios were developed to describe common patient encounters in clinical practice focused on common applications and anticipated uses of testing for CCD. Where appropriate, the scenarios were developed on the basis of the most current ACC/American Heart Association guidelines. A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios in this document on a scale of 1 to 9, following a modified Delphi process consistent with the recently updated AUC development methodology. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that a modality is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented, midrange scores of 4 to 6 indicate that a modality may be appropriate for the clinical scenario, and scores of 1 to 3 indicate that a modality is rarely appropriate.

Economic Issues in Heart Failure in the United States.

The cost of heart failure care is high owing to the cost of hospitalization and chronic treatments. Heart failure treatments vary in their benefit and cost. The cost effectiveness of therapies can be determined by comparing the cost of treatment required to obtain a certain benefit, often defined as an increase in 1 year of life. This review was sponsored by the Heart Failure Society of America and describes the growing economic burden of heart failure for patients and the health care system in the United States. It also provides a summary of the cost effectiveness of drugs, devices, diagnostic tests, hospital care, and transitions of care for patients with heart failure. Many medications that are no longer under patent are inexpensive and highly cost-effective. These include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. In contrast, more recently developed medications and devices, vary in cost effectiveness, and often have high out-of-pocket costs for patients.

2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary.

BACKGROUND: The 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (AHA/ACC/HFSA) Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure replaces the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure and the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews and other evidence conducted in human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies published through September 2021 were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments that have high-quality published economic analyses.

Assessment of coding-based frailty algorithms for long-term outcome prediction among older people in community settings: a cohort study from the Shizuoka Kokuho Database.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the applicability of Electronic Frailty Index (eFI) and Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) algorithms to Japanese administrative claims data and to evaluate their association with long-term outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cohort study using a regional government administrative healthcare and long-term care (LTC) claims database in Japan 2014-18. PARTICIPANTS: Plan enrollees aged ≥50 years. METHODS: We applied the two algorithms to the cohort and assessed the scores' distributions alongside enrollees' 4-year mortality and initiation of government-supported LTC. Using Cox regression and Fine-Gray models, we evaluated the association between frailty scores and outcomes as well as the models' discriminatory ability. RESULTS: Among 827,744 enrollees, 42.8% were categorised by eFI as fit, 31.2% mild, 17.5% moderate and 8.5% severe. For HFRS, 73.0% were low, 24.3% intermediate and 2.7% high risk; 35 of 36 predictors for eFI, and 92 of 109 codes originally used for HFRS were available in the Japanese system. Relative to the lowest frailty group, the highest frailty group had hazard ratios [95% confidence interval (CI)] of 2.09 (1.98-2.21) for mortality and 2.45 (2.28-2.63) for LTC for eFI; those for HFRS were 3.79 (3.56-4.03) and 3.31 (2.87-3.82), respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curves for the unadjusted model at 48 months was 0.68 for death and 0.68 for LTC for eFI, and 0.73 and 0.70, respectively, for HFRS. CONCLUSIONS: The frailty algorithms were applicable to the Japanese system and could contribute to the identifications of enrollees at risk of long-term mortality or LTC use.

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and SARS-CoV-2 infection: an analysis from the veteran's affairs healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) are known to impact the functional receptor for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The association between chronic therapy with these medications and infection risk remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to determine the association between prior ACEI or ARB therapy and SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with hypertension in the U.S. Veteran's Affairs health system. METHODS: We compared the odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection among three groups: patients treated with ACEI, treated with ARB, or treated with alternate first-line anti-hypertensives without ACEI/ARB. We excluded patients with alternate indications for ACEI or ARB therapy. We performed an augmented inverse propensity weighted analysis with adjustment for demographics, region, comorbidities, vitals, and laboratory values. RESULTS: Among 1,724,723 patients with treated hypertension, 659,180 were treated with ACEI, 310,651 with ARB, and 754,892 with neither. Before weighting, patients treated with ACEI or ARB were more likely to be diabetic and use more anti-hypertensives. There were 13,278 SARS-CoV-2 infections (0.8%) between February 12, 2020 and August 19, 2020. Patients treated with ACEI had lower odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection (odds ratio [OR] 0.93; 95% CI: 0.89-0.97) while those treated with ARB had similar odds (OR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.96-1.07) compared with patients treated with alternate first-line anti-hypertensives without ACEI/ARB. In falsification analyses, patients on ACEI did not have a difference in their odds of unrelated outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest the safety of continuing ACEI and ARB therapy. The association between ACEI therapy and lower odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection requires further investigation.

Risk of Covid-19-Related Hospitalization and More Severe Outcomes in Medicare Beneficiaries Treated with Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors for Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: There are theoretical concerns that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) could increase the risk of severe Covid-19. OBJECTIVE: To determine if ACEIs and ARBs are associated with an increased risk of Covid-19 hospitalization overall, or hospitalization involving intensive care unit (ICU) admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death. DESIGN: Observational case-control study. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 66 years with hypertension, treated with ACEIs, ARBs, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), or thiazide diuretics. MAIN MEASURES: Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the outcomes of Covid-19 hospitalization, or hospitalization involving ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death. RESULTS: A total of 35,300 cases of hospitalized Covid-19 were matched to 228,228 controls on calendar date and neighborhood of residence. The median age of cases was 79 years, 57.4% were female, and the median duration of hospitalization was 8 days (interquartile range 5-12). ACEIs and ARBs were associated with a slight reduction in Covid-19 hospitalization risk compared with treatment with other first-line antihypertensives (OR for ACEIs 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.98; OR for ARBs 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.97). Similar results were obtained for hospitalizations involving ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death. There were no meaningful differences in risk for ACEIs compared with ARBs. In an analysis restricted to monotherapy with a first-line agent, CCBs were associated with a small increased risk of Covid-19 hospitalization compared with ACEIs (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.04-1.14), ARBs (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.15), or thiazide diuretics (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: ACEIs and ARBs were not associated with an increased risk of Covid-19 hospitalization or with hospitalization involving ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death. The finding of a small increased risk of Covid-19 hospitalization with CCBs was unexpected and could be due to residual confounding.

Comparison of the change in heart failure readmission and mortality rates between hospitals subject to hospital readmission reduction program penalties and critical access hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), announced in 2010, penalizes hospitals with high readmissions for multiple conditions including heart failure. METHODS: We compared heart failure readmission and mortality rates in hospitals exposed to HRRP financial penalties with critical access hospitals (CAHs) not subject to the penalty between 2005 and 2016 using 3-year moving averages from Hospital Compare. RESULTS: After HRRP introduction, CAHs experienced a 0.60% annual decrease (95% CI: -0.61 to -0.59%) in heart failure readmissions. HRRP-exposed hospitals experienced an additional 0.13% annual decrease (95% CI: -0.14 to -0.12%) compared with CAHs. The association between HRRP penalties and mortality varied with model specifications. CONCLUSIONS: Using CAHs as a control group, we found the introduction of financial penalties was only associated with modest reductions in readmissions and an uncertain association with mortality. Cluster-randomized rollouts of health care policy interventions will allow us to better evaluate the impact of our interventions.