Koffi N Maglo1, Jack Rubinstein2, Bin Huang3, Richard F Ittenbach3. 1. Department of Philosophy, 206 McMicken Hall, PO Box 210374, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0374, Tel (513) 556-6337, maglokn@ucmail.uc.edu. 2. University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. 3. University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The African American Heart Failure Trial (A-HeFT) and the FDA approval of BiDil for race-specific prescription have stirred the debate about the scientific and medical status of race. Yet there is no assessment of the potential fallouts of this dispute on physicians' willingness to prescribe the drug. We present here an analysis of the factors influencing physicians' prescription of BiDil and investigate whether exposure to the controversy has an impact on their therapeutic judgments about the drug. METHODS: We conducted an electronic survey with physicians in the department of internal medicine at the University of Cincinnati. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups, with one group receiving information about the controversy over BiDil. We used various statistical tests, including a linear mixed effects model, to analyze the results. RESULTS: 27% of the participants reported using patients' race as a major factor in making treatment decisions. 33% reported the inefficacy of standard therapies, 25% the severity of the disease, and 15% other unspecified factors as primary determining criteria in prescribing BiDil. With respect to the controversy, 68% of physicians reported that they were not aware of any controversy surrounding BiDil. Physicians' willingness to prescribe BiDil as a therapy was associated with their awareness of the controversy surrounding A-HeFT (p < 0.003). But their willingness to prescribe the therapy along racial lines did not vary significantly with exposure to the controversy. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, physicians prescribe and are willing to prescribe BiDil more to black patients than to white patients. However, physicians' lack of awareness about the controversial scientific status of A-HeFT suggests the need for more efficient ways to convey scientific information about BiDil to clinicians. Furthermore, the uncertainties about the determination of clinical utility of BiDil for the individual patient raise questions about whether this specific race-based therapy is in patients' best interest.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The African American Heart Failure Trial (A-HeFT) and the FDA approval of BiDil for race-specific prescription have stirred the debate about the scientific and medical status of race. Yet there is no assessment of the potential fallouts of this dispute on physicians' willingness to prescribe the drug. We present here an analysis of the factors influencing physicians' prescription of BiDil and investigate whether exposure to the controversy has an impact on their therapeutic judgments about the drug. METHODS: We conducted an electronic survey with physicians in the department of internal medicine at the University of Cincinnati. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups, with one group receiving information about the controversy over BiDil. We used various statistical tests, including a linear mixed effects model, to analyze the results. RESULTS: 27% of the participants reported using patients' race as a major factor in making treatment decisions. 33% reported the inefficacy of standard therapies, 25% the severity of the disease, and 15% other unspecified factors as primary determining criteria in prescribing BiDil. With respect to the controversy, 68% of physicians reported that they were not aware of any controversy surrounding BiDil. Physicians' willingness to prescribe BiDil as a therapy was associated with their awareness of the controversy surrounding A-HeFT (p < 0.003). But their willingness to prescribe the therapy along racial lines did not vary significantly with exposure to the controversy. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, physicians prescribe and are willing to prescribe BiDil more to black patients than to white patients. However, physicians' lack of awareness about the controversial scientific status of A-HeFT suggests the need for more efficient ways to convey scientific information about BiDil to clinicians. Furthermore, the uncertainties about the determination of clinical utility of BiDil for the individual patient raise questions about whether this specific race-based therapy is in patients' best interest.
Authors: Noah A Rosenberg; Jonathan K Pritchard; James L Weber; Howard M Cann; Kenneth K Kidd; Lev A Zhivotovsky; Marcus W Feldman Journal: Science Date: 2002-12-20 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Danielle Frank; Thomas H Gallagher; Sherrill L Sellers; Lisa A Cooper; Eboni G Price; Adebola O Odunlami; Vence L Bonham Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Dennis M McNamara; S William Tam; Michael L Sabolinski; Page Tobelmann; Karen Janosko; Lakshmi Venkitachalam; Elizabeth Ofili; Clyde Yancy; Arthur M Feldman; Jalal K Ghali; Anne L Taylor; Jay N Cohn; Manuel Worcel Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2008-12-23 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Shawneequa L Callier; Perry W Payne; Deborah Akinniyi; Kaitlyn McPartland; Terry L Richardson; Mark A Rothstein; Charmaine D M Royal Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2022-02-03