Usha Subramanian

Cognitive Deficits in Chronic Heart Failure

Background:Patients with heart failure (HF) have been found to have cognitive deficits, but it remains unclear whether these deficits are associated with HF or with aging or comorbid conditions common in HF. Objectives:The purpose of this study was (a) to determine the types, the frequency, and the severity of cognitive deficits among patients with chronic HF compared with age- and education-matched healthy participants and participants with major medical conditions other than HF, and (b) to evaluate the relationships between HF severity, age, and comorbidities and cognitive deficits. Methods:A sample of 414 participants completed the study (249 HF patients, 63 healthy and 102 medical participants). The HF patients completed measures of HF severity, comorbidity (multiple comorbidity, depressive symptoms), and neuropsychological functioning. Blood pressure and oxygen saturation were assessed at interview; clinical variables were abstracted from records. Participants in the comparison groups completed the same measures as the HF patients except those specific to HF. Results:Compared with the healthy and medical participants, HF patients had poorer memory, psychomotor speed, and executive function. Significantly more HF patients (24%) had deficits in three or more domains. Higher (worse) HF severity was associated with more cognitive deficits; HF severity interacted with age to explain deficits in executive function. Surprisingly, men with HF had poorer memory, psychomotor speed, and visuospatial recall ability than women. Multiple comorbidity, hypertension, depressive symptoms, and medications were not associated with cognitive deficits in this sample. Discussion:HF results in losses in memory, psychomotor speed, and executive function in almost one fourth of patients. Patients with more severe HF are at risk for cognitive deficits. Older patients with more severe HF may have more problems in executive function, and men with HF may be at increased risk for cognitive deficits. Studies are urgently needed to identify the mechanisms for the cognitive deficits in HF and to test innovative interventions to prevent cognitive loss and decline.

Barriers to Insulin Initiation The Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes Insulin Starts Project

OBJECTIVE Reasons for failing to initiate prescribed insulin (primary nonadherence) are poorly understood. We investigated barriers to insulin initiation following a new prescription. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We surveyed insulin-naïve patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes, already treated with two or more oral agents who were recently prescribed insulin. We compared responses for respondents prescribed, but never initiating, insulin (n = 69) with those dispensed insulin (n = 100). RESULTS Subjects failing to initiate prescribed insulin commonly reported misconceptions regarding insulin risk (35% believed that insulin causes blindness, renal failure, amputations, heart attacks, strokes, or early death), plans to instead work harder on behavioral goals, sense of personal failure, low self-efficacy, injection phobia, hypoglycemia concerns, negative impact on social life and job, inadequate health literacy, health care provider inadequately explaining risks/benefits, and limited insulin self-management training. CONCLUSIONS Primary adherence for insulin may be improved through better provider communication regarding risks, shared decision making, and insulin self-management training.

The Role of Clinical Uncertainty in Treatment Decisions for Diabetic Patients with Uncontrolled Blood Pressure

Context Why do clinicians fail to intensify antihypertensive therapy when a patients blood pressure is elevated? Contribution This study involved 1169 diabetic patients seen by 92 primary care providers at 9 Veterans Affairs facilities. All had elevated triage blood pressures, but only half received antihypertensive treatment intensification by providers. Patient reports of home blood pressures or repeated blood pressures by providers within normal limits and discussion of medication issues decreased the likelihood of antihypertensive intensification at clinic visits. Implication Uncertainty about true blood pressure values may underlie many reasons why physicians do not intensify antihypertensive therapy. The Editors Despite some recent improvements in blood pressure control, the number of patients with inadequate control remains high and contributes to excess morbidity and mortality, especially among patients at high risk from complications of hypertension (18). Several studies have suggested that clinical inertiathe failure by providers to initiate or intensify therapy (medication intensification) in the face of apparent need to do sois a main contributor to poor control of hypertension (912). Although the failure to intensify treatment medications for patients with elevated blood pressures at visits has been well documented (5, 6, 1218), factors underlying what seems to be clinical inertia have been studied less systematically. When providers are queried after clinic visits about the lack of medication intensification for elevated blood pressure, they variously report that the patients true blood pressure was lower than the clinic blood pressure reading, that other patient concerns precluded attention on blood pressure management, and that patient adherence should be improved before medication intensification (6, 17). Some studies have examined the role of various clinical and patient factors in intensification decisions (6, 8, 17, 19, 20), but no study has used a detailed conceptual model to comprehensively examine the relative contribution of a broad array of potential patient, provider, organizational, and visit-specific contributors to a medication intensification decision. In addition, although a frequently cited reason for deferring medication changes is that the clinic blood pressure does not reflect the patients true blood pressure (21, 22), this clinical uncertainty and its effects have not been explored. To better understand factors underlying apparent clinical inertia for hypertension, we designed the ABATe (Addressing Barriers to Treatment for Hypertension) study to examine treatment change decisions for diabetic primary care patients with elevated triage blood pressures before a primary care visit. We defined elevated blood pressure for this population to be 140/90 mm Hg, a value well above guideline targets for diabetic patients and one clearly requiring some type of action (4). Our goals were to assess how often patients presenting with an elevated triage blood pressure received medication intensification or were scheduled for close follow-up and the role that clinical uncertainty about blood pressure, competing demands and prioritization, medication-related factors, and care organization play in treatment change decisions. Methods Conceptual Model On the basis of theories of patient, provider, and organization behavior (2336), we developed a conceptual modelthe hypertension clinical action modelto examine decisions that drive treatment change (medication intensification or prompt blood pressure follow-up) for elevated blood pressure (Figure 1). The model, developed by 2 internists and 3 PhD-level methodologists in conjunction with development of ABATe and before data collection, proposes such treatment change decisions at a visit are based on 4 main conceptual domains: clinical uncertainty (Is the patients blood pressure truly elevated? Does the clinic blood pressure reflect the true blood pressure?), competing demands and prioritization (What other problems need to be addressed at this visit? Is blood pressure management a priority for this particular patient? Does the provider place priority on blood pressure management in general?), medication-related factors (Should adherence be addressed first? Is the medication regimen too complex? Will the patient accept another medication?), and care organization (Is there sufficient time to address hypertension? Are staff available for follow-up?). In addition, as part of grant development, we hypothesized that the following factors would lead to a lower probability of treatment change: uncertainty about whether the patients visit blood pressure reflected their true blood pressure (clinical uncertainty), comorbid conditions unrelated to hypertension and diabetes (37), a lower priority placed by the provider on the importance of treating elevated blood pressure, a higher number of baseline medications, perceived medication adherence problems, shorter clinic visit times, and lack of staff to follow up for blood pressure medication adjustment. Figure 1. Hypertension clinical action model. Design Setting We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients with scheduled primary care visits at 9 Veterans Affairs facilities located in 3 midwestern states. These facilities varied in size and structure, with 3 large academic-affiliated medical centers, 1 large nonacademic medical center, and 1 large and 4 small community-based outpatient clinics. From 15 February 2005 to 14 February 2006, approximately 33500 diabetic patients visited primary care providers (including residents) in these facilities (range per facility, 1050 to 9200 diabetic patients). The institutional review boards of all participating facilities approved the study protocol. Both patients and providers gave written informed consent before participating. Providers received a

Adherence to cardiovascular disease medications: does patient-provider race/ethnicity and language concordance matter?

50 bookstore gift card, and patients received a

Thiazolidinediones and fractures: evidence from translating research into action for diabetes.

10 department store gift card for completing initial surveys. Providers were told that the study was about diabetes and hypertension, with the purpose being to study challenges in treating patients with diabetes and ways to overcome these challenges so that quality of care can be enhanced. Primary Care Providers We invited all nonresident primary care providers with patient care responsibility at least 2 half-days per week to participate in the study. Of the eligible 126 providers approached, 104 consented to participate, for an overall recruitment rate of 83% (median facility-level recruitment rate, 88%). By the time recruitment started, 12 providers had stopped working at their facility or changed their patient care responsibilities, leaving 92 primary care providers still eligible to participate (range per facility, 2 to 28 providers; median, 8). Patients As specified by our institutional review board protocols, potentially eligible patients were referred to study staff by triage personnel. During the enrollment periods at each facility, study staff screened all referred patients who presented for a scheduled visit to participating primary care providers and whose lowest triage systolic blood pressure was 140 mm Hg or greater or whose lowest triage diastolic blood pressure was 90 mm Hg or greater (Figure 2). In each of the facilities, triage staff routinely used an electronic cuff to check the patients blood pressure before the provider visit. Triage policies specified that a second blood pressure measurement should be obtained if the first blood pressure was elevated. In addition to the triage blood pressure, study staff screened patients for the following inclusion criteria: the participant confirmed a diagnosis of diabetes, the participating provider was the primary provider of diabetes care for the participant, and the participant spoke English. Patients with impaired decision-making ability (for example, dementia and traumatic brain injury) or terminal disease and residents of nursing homes were excluded. Of the 1556 patients approached by study staff, 213 were ineligible (Figure 2) and 1169 provided written informed consent to participate in the study (approached and eligible, 87%; median facility-level recruitment rate, 89%). We enrolled a median of 14 patients per provider (range, 1 to 16 patients) from February 2005 to March 2006. Recruitment time per facility varied from 4 to 12 months. Figure 2. Study flow diagram. PCP = primary care provider. *Diabetic patients presenting for a primary care visit to 1 of 92 participating providers were referred for eligibility assessment if their lowest triage blood pressure was140/90 mm Hg. *Number of responses varied by individual item. Our prespecified sample size calculations stipulated that we needed at least 11 patients from 80 physicians across 8 sites (that is, 880 patients) to detect a moderate difference in treatment change (about 12%) when competing demands were or were not present. Data Sources We included data from 5 sources in our analysis (Table 1). First, a baseline survey completed by all providers provided variables assessing provider prioritization to blood pressure management, general provider characteristics, and availability of ancillary support for blood pressure management. Second, providers completed a brief visit survey for each patient after the same clinic session in which they saw the patient (completion rate, 99%). This survey provided information on which issues were discussed during the visit, the providers blood pressure goal for the patient, and whether medications were changed during the visit. Third, a patient survey conducted at enrollment provided sociodemographic characteristics, self-reported adherence and difficulty with medications, and self-management practices (completion rate, 91%). Fourth, review of electronic medical records documented free text blood pressure values and notes on actions taken at the enrollment visit. Finally, patient age, prescribed medications and th

Predictors and impact of intensification of antihyperglycemic therapy in type 2 diabetes: Translating Research into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD)

BackgroundPatient–physician race/ethnicity and language concordance may improve medication adherence and reduce disparities in cardiovascular disease (CVD) by fostering trust and improved patient–physician communication.ObjectiveTo examine the association of patient race/ethnicity and language and patient–physician race/ethnicity and language concordance on medication adherence rates for a large cohort of diabetes patients in an integrated delivery system.DesignWe studied 131,277 adult diabetes patients in Kaiser Permanente Northern California in 2005. Probit models assessed the effect of patient and physician race/ethnicity and language on adherence to CVD medications, after controlling for patient and physician characteristics.ResultsTen percent of African American, 11 % of Hispanic, 63% of Asian, and 47% of white patients had same race/ethnicity physicians. 24% of Spanish-speaking patients were linguistically concordant with their physicians. African American (46%), Hispanic (49%) and Asian (52%) patients were significantly less likely than white patients (58%) to be in good adherence to all of their CVD medications (p < 0.001). Spanish-speaking patients were less likely than English speaking patients to be in good adherence (51% versus 57%, p < 0.001). Race concordance for African American patients was associated with adherence to all their CVD medications (53% vs. 50%, p < 0.05). Language concordance was associated with medication adherence for Spanish-speaking patients (51% vs. 45%, p < 0.05).ConclusionIncreasing opportunities for patient–physician race/ethnicity and language concordance may improve medication adherence for African American and Spanish-speaking patients, though a similar effect was not observed for Asian patients or English-proficient Hispanic patients.

Physicians’ Perceptions of Barriers to Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factor Control among Patients with Diabetes: Results from the Translating Research into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD) Study

BACKGROUND Thiazolidinedione (TZD) treatment has been associated with fractures. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between TZD treatment and fractures in type 2 diabetic patients. METHODS Using data from Translating Research into Action for Diabetes, a multicenter prospective observational study of diabetes care in managed care, we conducted a matched case-control study to assess the odds of TZD exposure in patients with type 2 diabetes with and without fractures. We identified 786 cases based on fractures detected in health plan administrative data. Up to four controls without any fracture diagnoses were matched to each case. Controls were matched on health plan, date of birth within 5 yr, sex, race/ethnicity, and body mass index within 5 kg/m(2). We performed conditional logistic regression for premenopausal and postmenopausal women and men to assess the odds of exposure to potential risk factors for fracture, including medications, self-reported limited mobility, and lower-extremity amputations. RESULTS We found statistically significant increased odds of exposure to TZDs, glucocorticoids, loop diuretics, and self-reported limited mobility for women 50 yr of age and older with fractures. Exposure to both loop diuretics and TZDs, glucocorticoids, and insulin and limited mobility and lower-extremity amputation were associated with fractures in men. CONCLUSION Postmenopausal women taking TZDs and the subset of men taking both loop diuretics and TZDs were at increased risk for fractures. In postmenopausal women, risk was associated with higher TZD dose. No difference between rosiglitazone and pioglitazone was apparent.

Measuring Depressive Symptoms in Heart Failure: Validity and Reliability of the Patient Health Questionnaire–8

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to examine the predictors of intensification of antihyperglycemic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes; its impact on A1C, body weight, symptoms of anxiety/depression, and health status; and patient characteristics associated with improvement in A1C. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We analyzed survey, medical record, and health plan administrative data collected in Translating Research into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD). We examined patients who were using diet/exercise or oral antihyperglycemic medications at baseline, had A1C >7.2%, and stayed with the same therapy or intensified therapy (initiated or increased the number of classes of oral antihyperglycemic medications or began insulin) over 18 months. RESULTS Of 1,093 patients, 520 intensified therapy with oral medications or insulin. Patients intensifying therapy were aged 58 ± 12 years, had diabetes duration of 11 ± 9 years, and had A1C of 9.1 ± 1.5%. Younger age and higher A1C were associated with therapy intensification. Compared with patients who did not intensify therapy, those who intensified therapy experienced a 0.49% reduction in A1C (P < 0.0001), a 3-pound increase in weight (P = 0.003), and no change in anxiety/depression (P = 0.5) or health status (P = 0.2). Among those who intensified therapy, improvement in A1C was associated with higher baseline A1C, older age, black race/ethnicity, lower income, and more physician visits. CONCLUSIONS Treatment intensification improved glycemic control with no worsening of anxiety/depression or health status, especially in elderly, lower-income, and minority patients with type 2 diabetes. Interventions are needed to overcome clinical inertia when patients might benefit from treatment intensification and improved glycemic control.

Perspectives from the Veterans Health Administration about opportunities and barriers in telemedicine.

Introduction: Many patients with diabetes have poorly controlled blood glucose, lipid, or blood pressure levels, increasing their risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and other complications. Relatively little is known about what physicians perceive to be barriers to good CVD risk factor control or their own role in helping patients achieve good control. Methods: We interviewed 34 primary care physicians in 4 states to assess their perceptions of patients’ barriers to CVD risk factor control. Interviews were coded and analyzed for emergent themes. Results: Physicians attributed barriers primarily to patients (socioeconomic issues, competing medical conditions, and lack of motivation) or to health system barriers (cost of care or lack of a multidisciplinary team). Physicians also expressed high levels of frustration with their efforts to address barriers. Conclusions: Physicians felt that barriers to CVD risk factor control often were beyond their abilities to address. Training physicians or other members of the primary health care team to address patients’ personal barriers and health system barriers to good control could help alleviate high frustration levels, improve relationships with patients, and improve the treatment of diabetes. Supporting such efforts with adequate reimbursement should be a focus of health care reform.

Evaluation of a nurse practitioner disease management model for chronic heart failure: A multi-site implementation study

BACKGROUND Depressive symptoms are common in patients with heart failure, but few investigators have reported the validity and reliability of measures of depressive symptoms among these patients. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the validity and reliability of a measure of depressive symptoms, the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8), among 249 patients with chronic heart failure. METHODS As part of a larger study, patients completed the PHQ-8 and the Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire. New York Heart Association class was assessed as a measure of the severity of heart failure. Construct validity of the PHQ-8 was evaluated by confirmatory factor analysis, Pearson correlation coefficients, and analysis of variance. Internal consistency reliability was estimated by using the Cronbach α. RESULTS The sample was 63% men, with a mean age of 63 years, and 67% reported their race as white. Construct validity of the PHQ-8 was supported. The confirmatory factor analysis model reflected the emotional and somatic dimensions of depressive symptoms and displayed a good fit with the data. The χ(2) value of the PHQ-8 was 24.75 with 18 degrees of freedom (P =.13) and the goodness-of-fit index was 0.98. The PHQ-8 was significantly correlated with the total and subscale scores on the Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (P <.001 for all correlations). Differences in the PHQ-8 scores were found among New York Heart Association classes (F=20.4, P<.001). The PHQ-8 internal consistency reliability (Cronbach α) was 0.82. CONCLUSIONS The PHQ-8 demonstrated satisfactory validity and reliability; these results support its use to measure depressive symptoms in patients with heart failure.