Association of Psychosocial Risk Factors and Outcomes in Heart Failure: Does COVID-19 Affect Outcomes?

Psychosocial risk factors (PSRFs) have emerged as crucial nontraditional risk factors affecting outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). There is a paucity of data studying these risk factors in HF nationally. Additionally, whether the COVID-19 pandemic impacted outcomes remains unexplored, given the increased psychosocial risk during these times. Our objective is to assess the impact of PSRFs on the outcomes of HF and their comparison across non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 eras. Patients with a diagnosis of HF were selected using the 2019-2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Two cohorts were created based on the presence or absence of PSRFs and compared across non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 eras. We examined the association using hierarchical multivariable logistic regression models. A total of 305,955 patients were included, of which 175,348 (57%) had PSRFs. Patients with PSRFs were younger, less likely to be female, and had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors. All-cause readmissions were higher in patients with PSRFs in both the eras. All-cause mortality [odds ratio, OR 1.15 (1.04-1.27), P = 0.005] and composite of MACE [OR 1.11 (1.06-1.16), P < 0.001] were higher in patients in the non-COVID-19 era. Compared to 2019, patients with PSRFs and HF in 2020 had significantly higher all-cause mortality [OR 1.13 (1.03-1.24), P = 0.009]; however, the composite of MACE was comparable [OR 1.04 (1.00-1.09), P = 0.03]. In conclusion, the presence of PSRFs in patients with HF is associated with a significant increase in all-cause readmissions in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 eras. The worse outcomes evident in the COVID-19 era highlights the importance of multidisciplinary care in this vulnerable population.

Economic Issues in Heart Failure in the United States.

The cost of heart failure care is high owing to the cost of hospitalization and chronic treatments. Heart failure treatments vary in their benefit and cost. The cost effectiveness of therapies can be determined by comparing the cost of treatment required to obtain a certain benefit, often defined as an increase in 1 year of life. This review was sponsored by the Heart Failure Society of America and describes the growing economic burden of heart failure for patients and the health care system in the United States. It also provides a summary of the cost effectiveness of drugs, devices, diagnostic tests, hospital care, and transitions of care for patients with heart failure. Many medications that are no longer under patent are inexpensive and highly cost-effective. These include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. In contrast, more recently developed medications and devices, vary in cost effectiveness, and often have high out-of-pocket costs for patients.

Prescription Filling Patterns of Evidence-Based Medical Therapies for Heart Failure During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining a steady medication supply during a public health crisis is a major health priority. We leveraged a large U.S. pharmacy-claims database to understand the use of evidence-based therapies in heart failure (HF) care during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We analyzed 27,027,650 individual claims from an all-payer pharmacy-claims database across 56,155 chain, independent and mail-order pharmacies in 14,164 zip codes in 50 states. Prescriptions dispensed (in 2-week intervals) of evidence-based HF therapies in 2020 were indexed to comparable timeframes in 2019. We normalized these year-to-year changes in HF medical therapies relative to those observed with a stable basket of drugs. RESULTS: Fills of losartan, lisinopril, carvedilol, and metoprolol all peaked in the weeks of March 2020 and demonstrated trajectories thereafter that were relatively consistent with the reference set of drugs. Fills of spironolactone (+4%) and eplerenone (+18%) showed modest trends toward increased relative use during 2020. Fills of empagliflozin (+75%), dapagliflozin (+65%) and sacubitril/valsartan (+61%) showed striking longitudinal increases throughout 2020 that deviated substantially from year-to-year trends of the overall basket of drugs. For all 3 therapies, fills of all quantity sizes increased relatively throughout 2020. For both generic and brand-name therapies, prescription fill patterns from mail-order pharmacies increased substantially over expected trends beginning in March 2020 CONCLUSION: Prescription fills of most established generic therapies used in HF care were maintained, whereas those of sacubitril/valsartan and the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors steeply increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. These nationwide pharmacy claims data provide reassurance about therapeutic access, during a public health crisis, to evidence-based medications used in HF care.

Humanizing the Morbidity and Mortality Conference.

Morbidity and mortality conferences (MMCs) are a long-held legacy institution in academic medicine that enable medical providers and hospital administrators to learn from systemic and individual errors, thereby leading to improved medical care. Originally, this forum had 1 major role-education. The MMC evolved and a second key role was added: quality improvement. In the wake of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, a second evolution-one that will humanize the MMC-is required. The pandemic emphasizes the need to use MMCs not only as a place to discuss errors but also as a place for medical providers to reflect on lives lost. The authors' review of the literature regarding MMCs indicates that most studies focus on enabling MMCs to become a forum for quality improvement, while none have emphasized the need to humanize MMCs to decrease medical provider burnout and improve patient satisfaction. Permitting clinicians to be human on the job requires restructuring the MMC to provide a space for reflection and, ultimately, defining a new purpose and charge for the MMC. The authors have 3 main recommendations. First, principles of humanism such as compassion, empathy, and respect, in particular, should be incorporated into traditional MMCs. Second, shorter gatherings devoted to giving clinicians the opportunity to focus on their humanity should be arranged. Third, an MMC focused entirely on the human aspects of medical care should be periodically arranged to provide an outlet for storytelling, artistic expression, and reflection. Humanizing the MMC-a core symposium in clinical medicine worldwide-could be the first step in revitalizing the spirit at the heart of medicine, one dedicated to health and healing. This spirit, which has been eroding as the field of medicine becomes increasingly corporate in structure and mission, is as essential during peaceful times in health care as during a pandemic.