RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: We examined the association of gynecologic oncology (GYO) versus medical oncology (MEDONC) based care with survival, health care utilization and spending outcomes in women undergoing chemotherapy for advanced gynecologic cancers. METHODS: Women with newly diagnosed stage III-IV uterine, ovarian, and cervical cancers from 2000 to 2015 were identified in SEER-Medicare. We assessed the association of provider specialty with overall survival, emergency department utilization, admissions, and spending. Outcomes were assessed using unadjusted and Inverse Treatment Probability Weighted propensity-score applied, multi-variable cox modeling, Poisson regression, and generalized models of log-transformed data. RESULTS: We identified 7930 gynecologic cancer patients (4360 ovarian, 2934 uterine, 643 cervix). 37% were treated by GYO and 63% by MEDONC. For ovarian patients, GYO care was associated with improved OS (median OS 3.3 v. 2.9 years; HR 0.85, 95%CI 0.80, 0.91, p < .0001) and similar mean spending per month ($4015 v. $4316, mean ratio 0.97 (95% CI 0.93, 1.02), p = .19), compared to MEDONC in adjusted analyses. For uterine patients, GYO care was associated with similar OS, but decreased spending ($3573 v. $4081, mean ratio 0.87 (95% CI.81, 0.93), p < .0001), and decreased ED utilization (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69, 0.85, p < .0001). For cervical patients, GYO care was associated with similar OS, and similar spending. Admissions were more likely in ovarian (RR 1.23, 95%CI 1.11, 1.37, p = .0001) and cervical patients (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05, 1.51, p = .015) treated by GYO, in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: GYO based care was associated with improved OS and equal spending for patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer. Uterine and cervix patients had similar OS, and less or equal spending respectively, when treated by GYO compared to MEDONC.
Asunto(s)
Antineoplásicos/uso terapéutico , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Ginecología , Gastos en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Oncología Médica , Neoplasias Ováricas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Uterinas/tratamiento farmacológico , Anciano , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Humanos , Medicare , Análisis Multivariante , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Estudios Retrospectivos , Programa de VERF , Tasa de Supervivencia , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Prior authorization was designed to minimize unnecessary care and reduce spending but has been associated with delays in necessary care. Our objective was to estimate the occurrence of prior authorization, and impact on cancer care, in gynecologic oncology. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients seen in University of Pennsylvania gynecologic oncology practices (January-March 2021). Using electronic medical records, we measured the incidence of prior authorization during the 3-month period and prior experience of prior authorization for cancer care overall and by type of order (chemotherapy, imaging, surgery, prescription drugs). We assessed the impact of prior authorization occurrence on clinical outcomes (time to service, changes in care). RESULTS: Of the 2112 clinic visits of 1406 unique patients, 5% experienced prior authorization during the 3-month study period. An additional 20% faced prior authorization requests earlier in cancer care. Of the 83 prior authorization requests, imaging accounted for the majority (54%) followed by supportive medications (29%) and chemotherapy (17%). After appeal, 79% of cases were approved. For patients whose prior authorizations were approved, there was a mean of 16 days from order placement to care delivery (95% CI 11-20, range 0-98 days). Of the 17 denials, 3 (18%) led to a substantial change in care (i.e., not receiving planned treatment). CONCLUSION: 25% of gynecologic oncology patients experienced prior authorization during their cancer care. While 80% of claims were ultimately approved, patients experienced over a 2-week delay in care when prior authorization occurred. Reform is needed to reduce the burden of prior authorization in oncology.
Asunto(s)
Atención a la Salud , Humanos , Femenino , Estados Unidos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estudios TransversalesRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The association of primary oncologist specialty, medical oncology versus gynecologic oncology, on intensity of care at the end of life in elderly patients with gynecologic cancer is unclear. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare (SEER-M) data. Subjects were fee-for-service Medicare enrollees aged 65 years and older who died of a gynecologic cancer between January 2006 and December 2015. The primary outcome was a composite score for high-intensity care received in the last month of life. Secondary outcomes included invasive procedures and Medicare spending in the last month of life. Simple and multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses evaluated differences in outcomes by primary oncologist specialty. Linear regressions were repeated after creating a more similar control group through nearest-neighbor propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of 12 189 patients, 7705 (63%) had a medical primary oncologist in the last year of life. In adjusted analyses, patients with a gynecologic versus medical primary oncologist received lower rates of high-intensity end-of-life care (53.9% vs 56.6%; p=0.018). Results were similar for the propensity score-matched cohorts. However, having a gynecologic versus medical primary oncologist was associated with higher rates of invasive procedures in the last month of life (43% vs 41%; p=0.014) and higher Medicare spending ($83 859 vs $74 849; p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Both specialties engage in overall high levels of intense end-of-life care, with differences by specialty in aspects of aggressive care and spending at the end of life. Physician-level training could be a target for educational or quality improvement initiatives to improve end-of-life cancer care delivery.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de los Genitales Femeninos , Medicina , Oncólogos , Cuidado Terminal , Anciano , Muerte , Femenino , Neoplasias de los Genitales Femeninos/terapia , Humanos , Medicare , Estudios Retrospectivos , Cuidado Terminal/métodos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the number of practice sites per gynecologic oncologist (GO) and geographic access to GOs has changed over time. METHODS: This is a retrospective repeated cross-sectional study using the 2015-2019 Physician Compare National File. All GOs in the 50 United States and Washington, DC, who had completed at least one year of practice were included in the study. All practice sites with complete addresses were included. Linear regression analyses estimated trends in GOs' number of practice sites and geographic dispersion of practice sites. Secondary analyses assessed temporal trends in the number of geographic areas served by at least one GO. RESULTS: Although there was no significant change in the number of GOs from 2015 to 2019 (n = 1328), there was a significant increase in the number of practice sites (881 to 1416, p = 0.03), zip codes (642 to 984, p = 0.03), HSAs (404 to 536, p = 0.04), and HRRs (218 to 230, p = 0.03) containing a GO practice. The mean number of practice sites (1.64 versus 2.13, p < 0.001) and dispersion of practice sites (0.03 versus 0.43 miles, p = 0.049) per GO increased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2015 and 2019, an increasing number of GOs have multi-site practices, and more geographic regions contain a GO practice. Improvements in geographic access to GOs may represent improved access to care for many women in the US, but its effect on patients, physicians, and geographic disparities is unknown.
Asunto(s)
Atención a la Salud/organización & administración , Atención a la Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias de los Genitales Femeninos/terapia , Ginecología/organización & administración , Oncología Médica/organización & administración , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Ginecología/estadística & datos numéricos , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Oncología Médica/estadística & datos numéricos , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/organización & administración , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of pharmacies in ensuring medications and health care needs are met, there is limited up-to-date information regarding access to pharmacies or their services in the United States. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate trends and disparities in access to pharmacies in 4 largest cities in the United States, New York City, Los Angeles, Houston, and Chicago, by neighborhood racial and ethnic composition from 2015 to 2020. METHODS: Data from the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs (2015-2020) and the American Community Survey (2015-2019) were used. We examined neighborhoods (i.e., census tracts) and evaluated disparities in "pharmacy deserts" (low-income neighborhoods (1) whose average distance to the nearest pharmacy was at least 1 mile or (2) whose average distance to the nearest pharmacy was at least 0.5 mile and at least 100 households had no vehicle access). We also evaluated the differences in pharmacy closures and the availability of pharmacy services. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2020, the percent of neighborhoods with pharmacy deserts declined in New York City (from 1.6% to 0.9% of neighborhoods, P < 0.01), remained stable in Los Angeles (13.7% to 13.4%, P = 0.58) and Houston (27.0% to 28.5%, P = 0.18), and increased in Chicago (15.0% to 19.9%, P < 0.01). Pharmacy deserts were persistently more common in Black and Latino neighborhoods in all 4 cities. As of 2020, pharmacies in Black and Latino neighborhoods were also more likely to close and less likely to offer immunization, 24-hour, and drive-through services than pharmacies in other neighborhoods. CONCLUSION: To reduce disparities in access to medications and health care services, including those in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic (e.g., testing and vaccinations), policies that improve pharmacy access and expand the provision of pharmacy services in minority neighborhoods are critical.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Servicios Farmacéuticos , Farmacias , Chicago , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud , Humanos , Los Angeles , Ciudad de Nueva York , SARS-CoV-2 , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: For decades, the prevailing assumption regarding the diffusion of high-cost medical technologies has been that competitive markets favor more aggressive adoption of new treatments by health care providers (ie, the "Medical Arms Race"). However, novel regulations governing the adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may have disrupted this paradigm when TAVR was introduced. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between the market concentration of physician group practices and the adoption of TAVR in its first years of use. RESEARCH DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Physician group practices (n=5116) providing interventional cardiology services in the United States from May 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014. MEASURES: The first use of TAVR as indicated by a fee-for-service Medicare claim. Covariates including characteristics of the physician groups (ie, case volume, hospital affiliation, mean patient risk) as well as county-level and market-level characteristics. RESULTS: By the close of 2014, 9.3% of practices had adopted TAVR. Cox proportional hazards models revealed a hazard ratio of 1.26 (95% confidence interval: 1.16-1.37, P<0.001) per 1000 point increase in the physician group practice Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, indicating each 1000 point increase in group practice Herfindahl-Hirschman Index was associated with a 26% relative increase in the rate of TAVR adoption. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of TAVR by physician groups in concentrated markets was potentially a consequence of the unique regulations governing TAVR reimbursement, which favored the adoption of TAVR by physician groups with greater market power. These findings have important implications for how future regulations may shape patterns of technology adoption.
Asunto(s)
Cardiólogos/estadística & datos numéricos , Competencia Económica/estadística & datos numéricos , Medicare/estadística & datos numéricos , Reemplazo de la Válvula Aórtica Transcatéter/estadística & datos numéricos , Difusión de Innovaciones , Humanos , Reembolso de Seguro de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Características de la Residencia/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
This study examined the association between the price of healthier food relative to unhealthy food and type 2 diabetes prevalence, incidence and insulin resistance (IR). Data came from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis exam 5 administered 2010-2012 (exam 4, five years prior, was used only for diabetes incidence) and supermarket food/beverage prices derived from Information Resources Inc. For each individual, average price of a selection of healthier foods, unhealthy foods and their ratio was computed for supermarkets within 3miles of the person's residential address. Diabetes status was confirmed at each exam and IR was assessed via the homeostasis model assessment index. Multivariable-adjusted logistic, modified Poisson and linear regression models were used to model diabetes prevalence, incidence and IR, respectively as a function of price and covariates; 2353 to 3408 participants were included in analyses (depending on the outcome). A higher ratio of healthy-to-unhealthy neighborhood food price was associated with greater IR (4.8% higher HOMA-IR score for each standard deviation higher price ratio [95% CI -0.2% to 10.1%]) after adjusting for region, age, gender, race/ethnicity, family history of diabetes, income/wealth index, education, smoking status, physical activity, and neighborhood socioeconomic status. No association with diabetes incidence (relative risk=1.11, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.44) or prevalence (odds ratio=0.95, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.11) was observed. Higher neighborhood prices of healthier food relative to unhealthy food were positively associated with IR, but not with either diabetes outcome. This study provides new insight into the relationship between food prices with IR and diabetes.
Asunto(s)
Aterosclerosis/etnología , Costos y Análisis de Costo/economía , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/epidemiología , Resistencia a la Insulina , Características de la Residencia , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Factores Socioeconómicos , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
This Viewpoint notes that as clinicians incorporate new AI tools (such as chatbots) into their practice, they must also remain vigilant of the risks these tools pose to other aspects of patient care such as privacy.
Asunto(s)
Inteligencia Artificial , Atención a la Salud , Comunicación en Salud , Privacidad , RiesgoAsunto(s)
Organizaciones Responsables por la Atención/legislación & jurisprudencia , Conflicto de Intereses , Prestación Integrada de Atención de Salud , Manejo de Atención al Paciente/organización & administración , Organizaciones Responsables por la Atención/economía , Organizaciones Responsables por la Atención/ética , Prestación Integrada de Atención de Salud/economía , Prestación Integrada de Atención de Salud/legislación & jurisprudencia , Instituciones Asociadas de Salud/legislación & jurisprudencia , Instituciones Asociadas de Salud/tendencias , Humanos , Medicare/legislación & jurisprudencia , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Targeted cancer drugs (TCDs) have revolutionized oncology but vary in clinical benefit and patient out-out-pocket (OOP) costs. The ASCO Value Framework uses survival, toxicity, and symptom palliation data to quantify the net health benefit (NHB) of cancer drugs. We evaluated associations between NHB, uptake, and spending on oral TCDs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 18-64 years with an incident oral TCD pharmacy claim in 2012-2020 in a nationwide de-identified commercial claims dataset. TCDs were categorized as having high (>60), medium (40-60), and low (<40) NHB scores. We plotted the uptake of TCDs by NHB category and used standard descriptive statistics to evaluate patient OOP and total spending. Generalized linear models evaluated the relationship between spending and TCD NHB, adjusted for cancer indication. RESULTS: We included 8,524 patients with incident claims for eight oral TCDs with nine first-line indications in advanced melanoma, breast, lung, and pancreatic cancer. Medium- and high-NHB TCDs accounted for most TCD prescriptions. Median OOP spending was $18.78 for the first 28-day TCD supply (IQR $0.00-$87.57); 45% of patients paid $0 OOP. Median total spending was $10,118.79 (IQR $6,365.95-$10,600.37) for an incident 28-day TCD supply. Total spending increased $1,083.56 for each 10-point increase in NHB score (95% CI $1,050.27-$1,116.84, p < .01 for H0=$0). CONCLUSION: Low-NHB TCDs were prescribed less frequently than medium- and high-NHB TCDs. Total spending on oral TCDs was high and positively associated with NHB. Commercially insured patients were largely shielded from high OOP spending on oral TCDs.
RESUMEN
Importance: Integration of pharmacies with physician practices, also known as medically integrated dispensing, is increasing in oncology. However, little is known about how this integration affects drug use, expenditures, medication adherence, or time to treatment initiation. Objective: To examine the association of physician-pharmacy integration with oral oncology drug expenditures, use, and patient-centered measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used claims data from a large commercial insurer in the US to analyze changes in outcome measures among patients treated by pharmacy-integrating vs nonintegrating community oncologists in 14 states between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2019. Commercially insured patients were aged 18 to 64 years with 1 of the following advanced-stage diagnoses: breast cancer, colorectal cancer, kidney cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, or prostate cancer. Data analysis was conducted from May 2023 to March 2024. Exposure: Treatment by a pharmacy-integrating oncologist, ascertained by the presence of an on-site pharmacy or nonpharmacy dispensing site. Main Outcomes and Measures: Oral, intravenous (IV), total, and out-of-pocket drug expenditures for a 6-month episode of care; share of patients prescribed oral drugs; days' supply of oral drugs; medication adherence measured by proportion of days covered; and time to treatment initiation. The association between an oncologist's pharmacy integration and each outcome of interest was estimated using the difference-in-differences estimator. Results: Between 2012 and 2019, 3159 oncologists (745 females [27.1%], 2002 males [72.9%]) treated 23â¯968 patients (66.4% female; 53.4% aged 55-64 years). Of the 3159 oncologists, 578 (18.3%) worked in practices that integrated with pharmacies (with a low rate in 2011 of 0% and a high rate in 2019 of 31.5%). In the full sample (including all cancer sites), after physician-pharmacy integration, no significant changes were found in oral drug expenditures, IV drug expenditures, or total drug expenditures. There was, however, an increase in days' supply of oral drugs (5.96 days; 95% CI, 0.64-11.28 days; P = .001). There were no significant changes in out-of-pocket expenditures, medication adherence, or time to treatment initiation of oral drugs. In the breast cancer sample, there was an increase in oral drug expenditures ($244; 95% CI, $41-$446; P = .02) and a decrease in IV drug expenditures (-$4187; 95% CI, -$8293 to -$80; P = .05). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study indicated that the integration of oncology practices with pharmacies was not associated with significant changes in expenditures or clear patient-centered benefits.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias , Humanos , Femenino , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto , Neoplasias/tratamiento farmacológico , Cumplimiento de la Medicación/estadística & datos numéricos , Estados Unidos , Estudios de Cohortes , Gastos en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Antineoplásicos/uso terapéutico , Antineoplásicos/economía , Adolescente , Adulto Joven , Oncólogos/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether mandatory participation by hospitals in bundled payments for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) was associated with changes in outcome disparities for patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: We used Medicare claims data for beneficiaries undergoing LEJR in the United States between 2011 and 2017. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective observational study using a differences-in-differences method to compare changes in outcome disparities between dual-eligible and non-dual eligible beneficiaries after hospital participation in the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program. The primary outcome was LEJR complications. Secondary outcomes included 90-day readmissions and mortality. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified hospitals in the US market areas eligible for CJR. We included beneficiaries in the intervention group who received joint replacement at hospitals in markets randomized to participate in CJR. The comparison group included patients who received joint replacement at hospitals in markets who were eligible for CJR but randomized to control. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The study included 1,603,555 Medicare beneficiaries (mean age, 74.6 years, 64.3% women, 11.0% dual-eligible). Among participant hospitals, complications decreased between baseline and intervention periods from 11.0% to 10.1% for dual-eligible and 7.0% to 6.4% for non-dual-eligible beneficiaries. Among nonparticipant hospitals, complications decreased from 10.3% to 9.8% for dual-eligible and 6.7% to 6.0% for non-dual-eligible beneficiaries. In adjusted analysis, CJR participation was associated with a reduced difference in complications between dual-eligible and non-dual-eligible beneficiaries (-0.9 percentage points, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.1). The reduction in disparities was observed among hospitals without prior experience in a voluntary LEJR bundled payment model. There were no differential changes in 90-day readmissions or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Mandatory participation in a bundled payment program was associated with reduced disparities in joint replacement complications for Medicare beneficiaries with low income. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence of reduced socioeconomic disparities in outcomes under value-based payments.
RESUMEN
Of people appointed to the Department of Health and Human Services between 2004 and 2020, 15 percent had been employed in private industry immediately before their appointment. At the end of their tenure, 32 percent exited to industry. The greatest net exits to industry were from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Asunto(s)
Instituciones de Salud , Medicare , Anciano , Estados Unidos , Humanos , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.RESUMEN
While prior authorization aims to reduce unnecessary care, it may limit or delay medically necessary care. Delays in cancer care can impact survival and are more common in historically-marginalized populations. Our objective was to examine to what extent disparities occurred in prior authorizations for gynecologic oncology. Using electronic medical records, we performed a retrospective review of prior authorization occurrence during gynecologic oncology care and analyzed the association with patient race and insurance in a multivariate regression model. In this cohort of 1,406 patients treated at an academic gynecologic oncology practice, patients with Medicare Advantage and patients of Asian descent were more likely to experience prior authorization. Addressing insurance-mediate disparities, such as in the occurrence of prior authorization, may help reduce disparities in gynecologic cancer care.
RESUMEN
Hospital readmission prediction models often perform poorly, but most only use information collected until the time of hospital discharge. In this clinical trial, we randomly assigned 500 patients discharged from hospital to home to use either a smartphone or wearable device to collect and transmit remote patient monitoring (RPM) data on activity patterns after hospital discharge. Analyses were conducted at the patient-day level using discrete-time survival analysis. Each arm was split into training and testing folds. The training set used fivefold cross-validation and then final model results are from predictions on the test set. A standard model comprised data collected up to the time of discharge including demographics, comorbidities, hospital length of stay, and vitals prior to discharge. An enhanced model consisted of the standard model plus RPM data. Traditional parametric regression models (logit and lasso) were compared to nonparametric machine learning approaches (random forest, gradient boosting, and ensemble). The main outcome was hospital readmission or death within 30 days of discharge. Prediction of 30-day hospital readmission significantly improved when including remotely-monitored patient data on activity patterns after hospital discharge and using nonparametric machine learning approaches. Wearables slightly outperformed smartphones but both had good prediction of 30-day hospital-readmission.
Asunto(s)
Readmisión del Paciente , Dispositivos Electrónicos Vestibles , Humanos , Alta del Paciente , Monitoreo Fisiológico , HospitalesRESUMEN
Importance: Statins reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, but less than one-half of individuals in America who meet guideline criteria for a statin are actively prescribed this medication. Objective: To evaluate whether nudges to clinicians, patients, or both increase initiation of statin prescribing during primary care visits. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial evaluated statin prescribing of 158 clinicians from 28 primary care practices including 4131 patients. The design included a 12-month preintervention period and a 6-month intervention period between October 19, 2019, and April 18, 2021. Interventions: The usual care group received no interventions. The clinician nudge combined an active choice prompt in the electronic health record during the patient visit and monthly feedback on prescribing patterns compared with peers. The patient nudge was an interactive text message delivered 4 days before the visit. The combined nudge included the clinician and patient nudges. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was initiation of a statin prescription during the visit. Results: The sample comprised 4131 patients with a mean (SD) age of 65.5 (10.5) years; 2120 (51.3%) were male; 1210 (29.3%) were Black, 106 (2.6%) were Hispanic, 2732 (66.1%) were White, and 83 (2.0%) were of other race or ethnicity, and 933 (22.6%) had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. In unadjusted analyses during the preintervention period, statins were prescribed to 5.6% of patients (105 of 1876) in the usual care group, 4.8% (97 of 2022) in the patient nudge group, 6.0% (104 of 1723) in the clinician nudge group, and 4.7% (82 of 1752) in the combined group. During the intervention, statins were prescribed to 7.3% of patients (75 of 1032) in the usual care group, 8.5% (100 of 1181) in the patient nudge group, 13.0% (128 of 981) in the clinician nudge arm, and 15.5% (145 of 937) in the combined group. In the main adjusted analyses relative to usual care, the clinician nudge significantly increased statin prescribing alone (5.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.4 to 7.8 percentage points; P = .01) and when combined with the patient nudge (7.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 5.1 to 9.1 percentage points; P = .001). The patient nudge alone did not change statin prescribing relative to usual care (0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.8 to 2.5 percentage points; P = .32). Conclusions and Relevance: Nudges to clinicians with and without a patient nudge significantly increased initiation of a statin prescription during primary care visits. The patient nudge alone was not effective. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04307472.
Asunto(s)
Inhibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Reductasas , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Registros Electrónicos de Salud , Hispánicos o Latinos , Inhibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Reductasas/uso terapéutico , Pacientes , Atención Primaria de SaludRESUMEN
Aim: To determine if interventional cardiologists' knowledge and attitudes toward pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing influenced their antiplatelet prescribing decisions in response to CYP2C19 results. Materials & methods: Surveys were administered prior to participating in a randomized trial of CYP2C19 testing. Associations between baseline knowledge/attitudes and agreement with the genotype-guided antiplatelet recommendations were determined using multivariable logistic regression. Results: 50% believed that PGx testing would be valuable to predict medication toxicity or efficacy. 64% felt well informed about PGx testing and its therapeutic application. However, PGx experience, knowledge, nor attitudes were significantly associated with agreement to genotype-guided antiplatelet recommendations. Conclusion: Cardiologists' knowledge and attitudes were not associated with CYP2C19-guided antiplatelet prescribing, but larger studies should be done to confirm this finding.
Lay abstract Our study aimed to determine if interventional cardiologists' knowledge and attitudes toward pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing influenced their medication prescribing decisions in response to variations in patients' genes. Surveys were given to the cardiologist prior to their participation in a PGx study. Associations between initial knowledge/attitudes and agreement with the PGx-guided medication recommendations were determined. 50% believed that PGx testing would be valuable to predict medication toxicity or efficacy. A total of 64% felt well informed about PGx testing and its therapeutic application. However, PGx experience, knowledge, or attitudes did not align with antiplatelet prescribing decisions. Cardiologists' knowledge and attitudes were not associated with PGx-guided medication prescribing, but larger studies should be done to confirm this finding.