Methods, rationale, and design for a remote pharmacist and navigator-driven disease management program to improve guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes at elevated cardiovascular and/or kidney risk.

AIM: Describe the rationale for and design of Diabetes Remote Intervention to improVe use of Evidence-based medications (DRIVE), a remote medication management program designed to initiate and titrate guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at elevated cardiovascular (CV) and/or kidney risk by leveraging non-physician providers. METHODS: An electronic health record based algorithm is used to identify patients with T2D and either established atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD), high risk for ASCVD, chronic kidney disease, and/or heart failure within our health system. Patients are invited to participate and randomly assigned to either simultaneous education and medication management, or a period of education prior to medication management. Patient navigators (trained, non-licensed staff) are the primary points of contact while a pharmacist or nurse practitioner reviews and authorizes each medication initiation and titration under an institution-approved collaborative drug therapy management protocol with supervision from a cardiologist and/or endocrinologist. Patient engagement is managed through software to support communication, automation, workflow, and standardization. CONCLUSION: We are testing a remote, navigator-driven, pharmacist-led, and physician-overseen management strategy to optimize GDMT for T2D as a population-level strategy to close the gap between guidelines and clinical practice for patients with T2D at elevated CV and/or kidney risk.

Virtual Care Team Guided Management of Patients With Heart Failure During Hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Scalable and safe approaches for heart failure guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) optimization are needed. OBJECTIVES: The authors assessed the safety and effectiveness of a virtual care team guided strategy on GDMT optimization in hospitalized patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: In a multicenter implementation trial, we allocated 252 hospital encounters in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% to a virtual care team guided strategy (107 encounters among 83 patients) or usual care (145 encounters among 115 patients) across 3 centers in an integrated health system. In the virtual care team group, clinicians received up to 1 daily GDMT optimization suggestion from a physician-pharmacist team. The primary effectiveness outcome was in-hospital change in GDMT optimization score (+2 initiations, +1 dose up-titrations, -1 dose down-titrations, -2 discontinuations summed across classes). In-hospital safety outcomes were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. RESULTS: Among 252 encounters, the mean age was 69 ± 14 years, 85 (34%) were women, 35 (14%) were Black, and 43 (17%) were Hispanic. The virtual care team strategy significantly improved GDMT optimization scores vs usual care (adjusted difference: +1.2; 95% CI: 0.7-1.8; P < 0.001). New initiations (44% vs 23%; absolute difference: +21%; P = 0.001) and net intensifications (44% vs 24%; absolute difference: +20%; P = 0.002) during hospitalization were higher in the virtual care team group, translating to a number needed to intervene of 5 encounters. Overall, 23 (21%) in the virtual care team group and 40 (28%) in usual care experienced 1 or more adverse events (P = 0.30). Acute kidney injury, bradycardia, hypotension, hyperkalemia, and hospital length of stay were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with HFrEF, a virtual care team guided strategy for GDMT optimization was safe and improved GDMT across multiple hospitals in an integrated health system. Virtual teams represent a centralized and scalable approach to optimize GDMT.

Results of a Remotely Delivered Hypertension and Lipid Program in More Than 10 000 Patients Across a Diverse Health Care Network.

Importance: Blood pressure (BP) and cholesterol control remain challenging. Remote care can deliver more effective care outside of traditional clinician-patient settings but scaling and ensuring access to care among diverse populations remains elusive. Objective: To implement and evaluate a remote hypertension and cholesterol management program across a diverse health care network. Design, Setting, and Participants: Between January 2018 and July 2021, 20 454 patients in a large integrated health network were screened; 18 444 were approached, and 10 803 were enrolled in a comprehensive remote hypertension and cholesterol program (3658 patients with hypertension, 8103 patients with cholesterol, and 958 patients with both). A total of 1266 patients requested education only without medication titration. Enrolled patients received education, home BP device integration, and medication titration. Nonlicensed navigators and pharmacists, supported by cardiovascular clinicians, coordinated care using standardized algorithms, task management and automation software, and omnichannel communication. BP and laboratory test results were actively monitored. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in BP and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Results: The mean (SD) age among 10 803 patients was 65 (11.4) years; 6009 participants (56%) were female; 1321 (12%) identified as Black, 1190 (11%) as Hispanic, 7758 (72%) as White, and 1727 (16%) as another or multiple races (including American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, unknown, other, and declined to respond; consolidated owing to small numbers); and 142 (11%) reported a preferred language other than English. A total of 424 482 BP readings and 139 263 laboratory reports were collected. In the hypertension program, the mean (SD) office BP prior to enrollment was 150/83 (18/10) mm Hg, and the mean (SD) home BP was 145/83 (20/12) mm Hg. For those engaged in remote medication management, the mean (SD) clinic BP 6 and 12 months after enrollment decreased by 8.7/3.8 (21.4/12.4) and 9.7/5.2 (22.2/12.6) mm Hg, respectively. In the education-only cohort, BP changed by a mean (SD) -1.5/-0.7 (23.0/11.1) and by +0.2/-1.9 (30.3/11.2) mm Hg, respectively (P < .001 for between cohort difference). In the lipids program, patients in remote medication management experienced a reduction in LDL-C by a mean (SD) 35.4 (43.1) and 37.5 (43.9) mg/dL at 6 and 12 months, respectively, while the education-only cohort experienced a mean (SD) reduction in LDL-C of 9.3 (34.3) and 10.2 (35.5) mg/dL at 6 and 12 months, respectively (P < .001). Similar rates of enrollment and reductions in BP and lipids were observed across different racial, ethnic, and primary language groups. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study indicate that a standardized remote BP and cholesterol management program may help optimize guideline-directed therapy at scale, reduce cardiovascular risk, and minimize the need for in-person visits among diverse populations.

Virtual optimization of guideline-directed medical therapy in hospitalized patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the IMPLEMENT-HF pilot study.

AIMS: Implementation of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains incomplete. Non-cardiovascular hospitalization may present opportunities for GDMT optimization. We assessed the efficacy and durability of a virtual, multidisciplinary 'GDMT Team' on medical therapy prescription for HFrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive hospitalizations in patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%) were prospectively identified from 3 February to 1 March 2020 (usual care group) and 2 March to 28 August 2020 (intervention group). Patients with critical illness, de novo heart failure, and systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg in the preceeding 24 hs prior to enrollment were excluded. In the intervention group, a pharmacist-physician GDMT Team provided optimization suggestions to treating teams based on an evidence-based algorithm. The primary outcome was a GDMT optimization score, the sum of positive (+1 for new initiations or up-titrations) and negative therapeutic changes (-1 for discontinuations or down-titrations) at hospital discharge. Serious in-hospital safety events were assessed. Among 278 consecutive encounters with HFrEF, 118 met eligibility criteria; 29 (25%) received usual care and 89 (75%) received the GDMT Team intervention. Among usual care encounters, there were no changes in GDMT prescription during hospitalization. In the intervention group, ß-blocker (72% to 88%; P = 0.01), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (6% to 17%; P = 0.03), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (16% to 29%; P = 0.05), and triple therapy (9% to 26%; P < 0.01) prescriptions increased during hospitalization. After adjustment for clinically relevant covariates, the GDMT Team was associated with an increase in GDMT optimization score (+0.58; 95% confidence interval +0.09 to +1.07; P = 0.02). There were no serious in-hospital adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Non-cardiovascular hospitalizations are a potentially safe and effective setting for GDMT optimization. A virtual GDMT Team was associated with improved heart failure therapeutic optimization. This implementation strategy warrants testing in a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Rationale and design of a navigator-driven remote optimization of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Although optimal pharmacological therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is carefully scripted by treatment guidelines, many eligible patients are not treated with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in clinical practice. We designed a strategy for remote optimization of GDMT on a population scale in patients with HFrEF leveraging nonphysician providers. An electronic health record-based algorithm was used to identify a cohort of patients with a diagnosis of heart failure (HF) and ejection fraction (EF) ≤ 40% receiving longitudinal follow-up at our center. Those with end-stage HF requiring inotropic support, mechanical circulatory support, or transplantation and those enrolled in hospice or palliative care were excluded. Treating providers were approached for consent to adjust medical therapy according to a sequential, stepped titration algorithm modeled on the current American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) HF Guidelines within a collaborative care agreement. The program was approved by the institutional review board at Brigham and Women's Hospital with a waiver of written informed consent. All patients provided verbal consent to participate. A navigator then facilitated medication adjustments by telephone and conducted longitudinal surveillance of laboratories, blood pressure, and symptoms. Each titration step was reviewed by a pharmacist with supervision as needed from a nurse practitioner and HF cardiologist. Patients were discharged from the program to their primary cardiologist after achievement of an optimal or maximally tolerated regimen. A navigator-led remote management strategy for optimization of GDMT may represent a scalable population-level strategy for closing the gap between guidelines and clinical practice in patients with HFrEF.

Assessment of Drug Therapy-Related Issues in an Outpatient Heart Failure Population and the Potential Impact of Pharmacist-Driven Intervention.

BACKGROUND: The Ambulatory Cardiac Triage, Intervention, and Education (ACTIVE) infusion unit is an outpatient center that aims to provide heart failure (HF) patients with comprehensive multidisciplinary interventions. OBJECTIVE: To describe the patient population served in ACTIVE and to document the prevalence of comorbidities and drug therapy-related issues (DRIs) in order to define the most effective role of a pharmacist in the unit. METHODS: Patients who have been interviewed by a pharmacist in ACTIVE were included. Comprehensive medical and medication profile reviews were performed. Patient comorbidities were documented, and DRIs were classified. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included. Most prevalent cardiac comorbidities included hypertension (73%) and hyperlipidemia (62%). Top 3 noncardiac comorbidities included chronic kidney disease (60%), diabetes (50%), and obesity (35%). The prevalence of DRI was reported as follows: (1) needs additional/alternative therapy (untreated indication [37] or suboptimal therapeutic choice [46]), (2) wrong drug (major drug-drug interaction [90], contraindication [11], or duplicate therapy [1]), (3) suboptimal dosing (17), (4) dose exceeds recommended maximum (9), and (5) adverse drug reaction (93). In 63 (22%) of the DRIs, a pharmacist made recommendations to modify the regimen. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of DRI is high even among HF patients managed in a subspecialty cardiovascular practice. Pharmacists in this setting play a vital role in more effectively resolving DRI.