Literature DB >> 33031534

Effect of Passive Choice and Active Choice Interventions in the Electronic Health Record to Cardiologists on Statin Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Srinath Adusumalli1,2,3, Julie E Westover3, Douglas S Jacoby1,2, Dylan S Small4, Christine VanZandbergen1, Jessica Chen1, Ann M Cavella1, Rebecca Pepe3, Charles A L Rareshide3, Christopher K Snider3, Kevin G Volpp1,2,4,5, David A Asch1,2,4,5, Mitesh S Patel1,2,3,4,5.   

Abstract

Importance: Statin therapy is underused for many patients who could benefit. Objective: To evaluate the effect of passive choice and active choice interventions in the electronic health record (EHR) to promote guideline-directed statin therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Three-arm randomized clinical trial with a 6-month preintervention period and 6-month intervention. Randomization conducted at the cardiologist level at 16 cardiology practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The study included 82 cardiologists and 11 693 patients. Data were analyzed between May 8, 2019, and January 9, 2020. Interventions: In passive choice, cardiologists had to manually access an alert embedded in the EHR to select options to initiate or increase statin therapy. In active choice, an interruptive EHR alert prompted the cardiologist to accept or decline guideline-directed statin therapy. Cardiologists in the control group were informed of the trial but received no other interventions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was statin therapy at optimal dose based on clinical guidelines. Secondary outcome was statin therapy at any dose.
Results: The sample comprised 11 693 patients with a mean (SD) age of 63.8 (9.1) years; 58% were male (n = 6749 of 11 693), 66% were White (n = 7683 of 11 693), and 24% were Black (n = 2824 of 11 693). The mean (SD) 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score was 15.4 (10.0); 68% had an ASVCD clinical diagnosis. Baseline statin prescribing rates at the optimal dose were 40.3% in the control arm, 39.1% in the passive choice arm, and 41.2% in the active choice arm. In adjusted analyses, the change in statin prescribing rates at optimal dose over time was not significantly different from control for passive choice (adjusted difference in percentage points, 0.2; 95% CI, -2.9 to 2.8; P = .86) or active choice (adjusted difference in percentage points, 2.4; 95% CI, -0.6 to 5.0; P = .08). In adjusted analyses of the subset of patients with clinical ASCVD, the active choice intervention resulted in a significant increase in statin prescribing at optimal dose relative to control (adjusted difference in percentage points, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.0-6.4; P = .008). No other subset analyses were significant. There were no significant changes in statin prescribing at any dose for either intervention. Conclusions and Relevance: The passive choice and active choice interventions did not change statin prescribing. In the subgroup of patients with clinical ASCVD, the active choice intervention led to a small increase in statin prescribing at the optimal dose, which could inform the design or targeting of future interventions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03271931.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33031534      PMCID: PMC7542520          DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.4730

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Cardiol            Impact factor:   14.676


  7 in total

Review 1.  Leveraging Healthcare System Data to Identify High-Risk Dyslipidemia Patients.

Authors:  Nayrana Griffith; Grace Bigham; Aparna Sajja; Ty J Gluckman
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2022-08-22       Impact factor: 3.955

2.  Algorithm-Enabled, Personalized Glucose Management for Type 1 Diabetes at the Population Scale: Prospective Evaluation in Clinical Practice.

Authors:  David Scheinker; Angela Gu; Joshua Grossman; Andrew Ward; Oseas Ayerdi; Daniel Miller; Jeannine Leverenz; Korey Hood; Ming Yeh Lee; David M Maahs; Priya Prahalad
Journal:  JMIR Diabetes       Date:  2022-06-06

Review 3.  The Role of Behavioral Economics in Improving Cardiovascular Health Behaviors and Outcomes.

Authors:  Allison J Hare; Mitesh S Patel; Kevin Volpp; Srinath Adusumalli
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 2.931

4.  Nudging within learning health systems: next generation decision support to improve cardiovascular care.

Authors:  Yang Chen; Steve Harris; Yvonne Rogers; Tariq Ahmad; Folkert W Asselbergs
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2022-03-31       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 5.  Contemporary Management of Dyslipidemia.

Authors:  Richard A Ferraro; Thorsten Leucker; Seth S Martin; Maciej Banach; Steven R Jones; Peter P Toth
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 11.431

Review 6.  There is urgent need to treat atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk earlier, more intensively, and with greater precision: A review of current practice and recommendations for improved effectiveness.

Authors:  Michael E Makover; Michael D Shapiro; Peter P Toth
Journal:  Am J Prev Cardiol       Date:  2022-08-06

7.  Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Treatment Rates in High Risk Patients: More Disappointment Despite Ever More Refined Evidence-Based Guidelines.

Authors:  Peter P Toth
Journal:  Am J Prev Cardiol       Date:  2021-04-23
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.