射血分数减低的心力衰竭患者在指南指导下接受药物治疗的方法存在差异:对心脏病专家、内科医生和药剂师的调查

IF 1.3 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Lana Alhashimi Pharm.D., David J. Cordwin Pharm.D., Jessica Guidi M.D., Scott L. Hummel M.D., M.S., Todd M. Koelling M.D., Michael P. Dorsch Pharm.D., M.S.
{"title":"射血分数减低的心力衰竭患者在指南指导下接受药物治疗的方法存在差异:对心脏病专家、内科医生和药剂师的调查","authors":"Lana Alhashimi Pharm.D.,&nbsp;David J. Cordwin Pharm.D.,&nbsp;Jessica Guidi M.D.,&nbsp;Scott L. Hummel M.D., M.S.,&nbsp;Todd M. Koelling M.D.,&nbsp;Michael P. Dorsch Pharm.D., M.S.","doi":"10.1002/jac5.2013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) has significantly improved outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, GDMT prescribing remains suboptimal. The purpose of this study was to survey cardiologists, internists, and pharmacists on their approach to GDMT prescribing.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A survey containing 20 clinical vignettes of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction was answered by 127 cardiologists, 68 internists, and 89 pharmacists. Each vignette presented options for adjusting GDMT. Responses were dichotomized to the answer of interest. A mixed-effect model was used to calculate the odds of changing GDMT between pharmacists and physicians.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Pharmacists were more likely to make changes to GDMT compared with internists (92.1 vs. 82%; odds ratio [OR] 3.02 [1.50–6.06]; <i>p</i> = 0.002). In medically naïve patients, pharmacists were more likely to initiate beta-blockers than internists (45.4 vs. 32.0%; OR 2.19 [1.00–4.79], <i>p</i> = 0.049). Pharmacists were more likely than both internists and cardiologists to initiate mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (34.4 vs. 11.5%; OR 4.95 [2.41–10.18]; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001 and 34.4 vs. 13.9%; OR 3.95 [2.16–7.21]; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Pharmacists were more likely than both internists and cardiologists to titrate beta-blockers (30.9 vs. 16.4%; OR 3.15 [1.92–5.19]; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001 and 30.9 vs. 22.0%; OR 1.88 [0.18–2.87]; <i>p</i> = 0.0030). Pharmacists were more likely than internists to titrate angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (61.8 vs. 34.1%; OR 3.54 [1.50–8.39]; <i>p</i> = 0.004).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The survey results show pharmacists were more likely to make any adjustments to GDMT than internists and cardiologists. Pharmacists prefer adding spironolactone and titrating beta-blockers compared with cardiologists and internists. Compared with only internists, pharmacists were more likely to initiate beta-blockers and titrate the dose of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":73966,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jac5.2013","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in the approach to guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A survey of cardiologists, internists, and pharmacists\",\"authors\":\"Lana Alhashimi Pharm.D.,&nbsp;David J. Cordwin Pharm.D.,&nbsp;Jessica Guidi M.D.,&nbsp;Scott L. Hummel M.D., M.S.,&nbsp;Todd M. Koelling M.D.,&nbsp;Michael P. Dorsch Pharm.D., M.S.\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jac5.2013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) has significantly improved outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, GDMT prescribing remains suboptimal. The purpose of this study was to survey cardiologists, internists, and pharmacists on their approach to GDMT prescribing.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A survey containing 20 clinical vignettes of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction was answered by 127 cardiologists, 68 internists, and 89 pharmacists. Each vignette presented options for adjusting GDMT. Responses were dichotomized to the answer of interest. A mixed-effect model was used to calculate the odds of changing GDMT between pharmacists and physicians.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Pharmacists were more likely to make changes to GDMT compared with internists (92.1 vs. 82%; odds ratio [OR] 3.02 [1.50–6.06]; <i>p</i> = 0.002). In medically naïve patients, pharmacists were more likely to initiate beta-blockers than internists (45.4 vs. 32.0%; OR 2.19 [1.00–4.79], <i>p</i> = 0.049). Pharmacists were more likely than both internists and cardiologists to initiate mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (34.4 vs. 11.5%; OR 4.95 [2.41–10.18]; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001 and 34.4 vs. 13.9%; OR 3.95 [2.16–7.21]; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Pharmacists were more likely than both internists and cardiologists to titrate beta-blockers (30.9 vs. 16.4%; OR 3.15 [1.92–5.19]; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001 and 30.9 vs. 22.0%; OR 1.88 [0.18–2.87]; <i>p</i> = 0.0030). Pharmacists were more likely than internists to titrate angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (61.8 vs. 34.1%; OR 3.54 [1.50–8.39]; <i>p</i> = 0.004).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The survey results show pharmacists were more likely to make any adjustments to GDMT than internists and cardiologists. Pharmacists prefer adding spironolactone and titrating beta-blockers compared with cardiologists and internists. Compared with only internists, pharmacists were more likely to initiate beta-blockers and titrate the dose of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jac5.2013\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jac5.2013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jac5.2013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

指南指导下的药物治疗(GDMT)大大改善了射血分数降低的心力衰竭患者的预后。然而,GDMT 的处方仍然不够理想。这项研究旨在调查心脏病专家、内科医生和药剂师开具 GDMT 处方的方法。127 名心脏病专家、68 名内科医生和 89 名药剂师回答了包含 20 个射血分数减低型心衰患者临床案例的调查问卷。每个小故事都提供了调整 GDMT 的选项。回答被二分为感兴趣的答案。采用混合效应模型计算药剂师和内科医生改变 GDMT 的几率。与内科医生相比,药剂师更有可能改变 GDMT(92.1% 对 82%;几率比 [OR] 3.02 [1.50-6.06];P = 0.002)。在医疗条件不成熟的患者中,药剂师比内科医生更有可能开始使用β-受体阻滞剂(45.4% 对 32.0%;OR 2.19 [1.00-4.79],p = 0.049)。药剂师比内科医生和心脏病专家更有可能使用矿质皮质激素受体拮抗剂(34.4 vs. 11.5%;OR 4.95 [2.41-10.18];p < 0.001 和 34.4 vs. 13.9%;OR 3.95 [2.16-7.21];p < 0.001)。药剂师比内科医生和心脏病专家更有可能滴定β-受体阻滞剂(30.9 vs. 16.4%;OR 3.15 [1.92-5.19];p < 0.001 和 30.9 vs. 22.0%;OR 1.88 [0.18-2.87];p = 0.0030)。药剂师比内科医生更有可能滴定血管紧张素受体-肾上腺素抑制剂(61.8% vs. 34.1%;OR 3.54 [1.50-8.39];p = 0.004)。与心脏病专家和内科医生相比,药剂师更倾向于添加螺内酯和滴定β-受体阻滞剂。与仅有的内科医生相比,药剂师更倾向于开始使用β-受体阻滞剂和滴定血管紧张素受体-奈普利辛抑制剂的剂量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Differences in the approach to guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A survey of cardiologists, internists, and pharmacists

Introduction

Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) has significantly improved outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, GDMT prescribing remains suboptimal. The purpose of this study was to survey cardiologists, internists, and pharmacists on their approach to GDMT prescribing.

Methods

A survey containing 20 clinical vignettes of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction was answered by 127 cardiologists, 68 internists, and 89 pharmacists. Each vignette presented options for adjusting GDMT. Responses were dichotomized to the answer of interest. A mixed-effect model was used to calculate the odds of changing GDMT between pharmacists and physicians.

Results

Pharmacists were more likely to make changes to GDMT compared with internists (92.1 vs. 82%; odds ratio [OR] 3.02 [1.50–6.06]; p = 0.002). In medically naïve patients, pharmacists were more likely to initiate beta-blockers than internists (45.4 vs. 32.0%; OR 2.19 [1.00–4.79], p = 0.049). Pharmacists were more likely than both internists and cardiologists to initiate mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (34.4 vs. 11.5%; OR 4.95 [2.41–10.18]; p < 0.001 and 34.4 vs. 13.9%; OR 3.95 [2.16–7.21]; p < 0.001). Pharmacists were more likely than both internists and cardiologists to titrate beta-blockers (30.9 vs. 16.4%; OR 3.15 [1.92–5.19]; p < 0.001 and 30.9 vs. 22.0%; OR 1.88 [0.18–2.87]; p = 0.0030). Pharmacists were more likely than internists to titrate angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (61.8 vs. 34.1%; OR 3.54 [1.50–8.39]; p = 0.004).

Conclusions

The survey results show pharmacists were more likely to make any adjustments to GDMT than internists and cardiologists. Pharmacists prefer adding spironolactone and titrating beta-blockers compared with cardiologists and internists. Compared with only internists, pharmacists were more likely to initiate beta-blockers and titrate the dose of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信