Randomized Trial to Improve Primary Care Patient Management and Patient Outcomes Using a Drug-Drug Interaction Test: Confirmation of the DECART Simulated Patient Clinical Utility Trial Results.

Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are a serious problem in the healthcare system, leading to excess healthcare utilization and costs. We conducted a second prospective randomized, controlled trial to further establish the real-world clinical utility of a novel assay that objectively identifies potentially serious DDIs in real-world patients. Re-recruiting primary care physicians (PCPs) from our first randomized, controlled, simulated-patients study on DDIs, we experimentally introduced a definitive, urine-based mass spectrometry test intervention that the physicians could use when caring for their eligible patients. Patients were eligible if taking four or more prescription medications or suspected of taking other non-prescribed substances with potential medication interactions. The primary outcome was whether DDI testing changed clinical care. We explored a secondary outcome to see if the change in practice improved symptoms in patients with potential DDIs. A total of 169 control and 162 intervention patients were enrolled in the study, and their medical records were abstracted. In real-world patients, intervention physicians identified and/or treated a DDI at 3.0x the rate in their patient population compared to controls (21.6% vs. 7.1%, p < 0.001). Intervention physicians were more likely to discontinue or adjust the interacting agent compared to controls (62.9% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.001), and patient-reported symptoms also significantly declined (29.6% vs. 20.1%, p = 0.045). These results were nearly identical to concurrent measurements that used simulated patients, wherein intervention was more likely to both make a DDI diagnosis (56.3% vs. 21.6%, p < 0.001) and stop the interacting medications (58.3% versus 26.6%, p < 0.001). Bringing a new diagnostic test to market, particularly for an under-recognized clinical problem, requires robust data on both clinical validity and clinical utility. The results of this follow-up study showed that the use of DDI testing in real-world patients significantly improved (1) primary care patient management of drug interactions and (2) patient outcomes.

Measuring the Variation in the Prevention and Treatment of CI-AKI Among Interventional Cardiologists.

Contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) occurs in up to 10% of cardiac catheterizations and coronary interventions, resulting in increased morbidity, mortality, and cost. One main reason for these complications and costs is under-recognition of CI-AKI risk and under-treatment of patients with impaired renal status. 157 interventional cardiologists each cared for three simulated patients with common conditions requiring intravascular contrast media in three typical settings: pre-procedurally, during the procedure, and post-procedure. We evaluated their ability to assess the risk of developing CI-AKI, make the diagnosis, and treat CI-AKI, including proper volume expansion and withholding nephrotoxic medications. Overall, the quality-of-care scores averaged 46.0% ± 10.5, varying between 18% to 78%. The diagnostic scores for accurately assessing risk of CI-AKI were low at 57.1% ± 21.2% and the accuracy of diagnosis pre-existing chronic kidney disease was 50.2%. Poor diagnostic accuracy led to poor treatment: proper volume expansion done in only 30.7% of cases, in-hospital repeat creatinine evaluation performed in 32.1%, and avoiding nephrotoxic medications occurred in 14.2%. While volume expansion was relatively similar across the three settings (P = 0.287), the cardiologists were less likely to discontinue nephrotoxic medications in pre-procedurally (9.7%) compared to the other settings (27.0%), and to order in-hospital creatinine testing in peri-procedurally (18.8%) compared to post-procedure (57.8%) (P < 0.05 for both). The overall care of patients at risk for contrast-induced acute kidney injury varied widely and showed room for improvement. Improving care for this condition will require greater awareness by cardiologists and better diagnostic tools to guide them.

Finding the clinical utility of 1,5-anhydroglucitol among primary care practitioners.

BACKGROUND: HbA1c is widely used as the standard measure to track glycemic control in patients with diabetes and pre-diabetes but measures average levels of glycated hemoglobin over two to three months, with limited utility in the presence of recent and/or short-term fluctuations in glycemic control, which are correlated with worse patient outcomes. METHODS: We examined the clinical utility of 1-5-anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG) in six different, but common, case types of diabetes patients with short-term glycemic variability. We conducted a randomized controlled trial of simulated patients to examine the clinical practice patterns of primary care physicians before and after introducing 1,5-AG. The 145 participants were randomly assigned into standard care or standard care + 1,5-AG arms. Provider care was reviewed against explicit evidence-based care standards. RESULTS: At baseline, we saw no difference between the two study arms in clinical quality of care provided (p = 0.997). After introduction of 1,5-AG, standard care + 1,5-AG providers performed 3.2% better than controls (p = 0.025. In diagnosis and treatment, there was a slight, but nonsignificant trend toward better care (+1.1%, p = 0.507) for intervention providers. Upon disaggregation by case, almost all the improvement occurred in the medication-induced hyperglycemia patients (+8.1%, p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: A nationally representative sample of primary care physicians demonstrated that of six different cases used in this study, 1,5-AG was found to be most effective increasing awareness of poor glucose control in medication-induced hyperglycemia. If 1,5-AG is used in this particular circumstance, the overall savings to the healthcare system is estimated to be $28 million.

Reducing Unneeded Clinical Variation in Sepsis and Heart Failure Care to Improve Outcomes and Reduce Cost: A Collaborative Engagement with Hospitalists in a MultiState System.

OBJECTIVE: To (1) measure hospitalist care for sepsis and heart failure patients using online simulated patients, (2) improve quality and reduce cost through customized feedback, and (3) compare patient-level outcomes between project participants and nonparticipants. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, quasi-controlled cohort study of hospitalists in eight hospitals matched with comparator hospitalists in six nonparticipating hospitals across the AdventHealth system. We provided measurement and feedback to participants using Clinical Performance and Value (CPV) vignettes to measure and track quality improvement. We then compared length of stay (LOS) and cost results between the two groups. RESULTS: 107 providers participated in the study. Over two years, participants improved CPV scores by nearly 8% (P < .001), with improvements in utilization of the three-hour sepsis bundle (46.0% vs 57.7%; P = .034) and ordering essential medical treatment elements for heart failure (58.2% vs 72.1%; P = .038). In study year one, average LOS observed/expected (O/E) rates dropped by 8% for participants, compared to 2.5% in the comparator group, equating to an additional 570 hospital days saved among project participants. In study year two, cost O/E rates improved from 1.16 to 0.98 for participants versus 1.14 to 1.01 in the comparator group. Based on these improvements, we calculated total cost savings of $6.2 million among study participants, with $3.8 million linked to system-wide improvements and an additional $2.4 million in savings attributable to this project. CONCLUSIONS: CPV case simulation-based measurement and feedback helped drive improvements in evidence-based care that translated into lower costs and LOS, above-and-beyond other improvements at AdventHealth.