ArticleJournal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP2024
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.
Article in Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) has significantly improved outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). 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 HFrEF 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 (ARNI) (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 ARNI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.