Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31112552›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2019

Diagnostic tests, drug prescriptions, and follow-up patterns after incident heart failure: A cohort study of 93,000 UK patients.

Nathalie Conrad, Andrew Judge, Dexter Canoy, Jenny Tran, Johanna O'Donnell, Milad Nazarzadeh, Gholamreza Salimi-Khorshidi, F D Richard Hobbs, John G Cleland, John J V McMurray and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06940544 (Uppsala Self-SCREENing of Heart Failure Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06940544 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Uppsala Self-SCREENing of Heart Failure Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorUppsala UniversityRan2023 to 2026Enrolled500ConditionsHeart FailureArmsStepwise Multimodal Home-Based HF Screening
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Nathalie ConradThe George Institute for Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5027-5481
Andrew JudgeNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3015-0432
Dexter CanoyThe George Institute for Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4493-9901
Jenny TranThe George Institute for Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1774-8803
Johanna O'DonnellThe George Institute for Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8028-8224
Milad NazarzadehThe George Institute for Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0576-8874
Gholamreza Salimi-KhorshidiThe George Institute for Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
F D Richard HobbsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7976-7172
John G ClelandRobertson Centre for Biostatistics and Clinical Trials, University of Glasgow and National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1471-7016
John J V McMurrayInstitute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6317-3975
Kazem RahimiThe George Institute for Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4807-4610

Funding

British Heart Foundation FS/16/10/32053Department of Health 12/01/52Department of Health IS-SPC-0514-10043Medical Research Council MC_PC_11004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective management of heart failure is complex, and ensuring evidence-based practice presents a major challenge to health services worldwide. Over the past decade, the United Kingdom introduced a series of national initiatives to improve evidence-based heart failure management, including a landmark pay-for-performance scheme in primary care and a national audit in secondary care started in 2004 and 2007, respectively. Quality improvement efforts have been evaluated within individual clinical settings, but patterns of care across its continuum, although a critical component of chronic disease management, have not been studied. We have designed this study to investigate patients' trajectories of care around the time of diagnosis and their variation over time by age, sex, and socioeconomic status. METHODS AND

findingsFor this retrospective population-based study, we used linked primary and secondary health records from a representative sample of the UK population provided by the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). We identified 93,074 individuals newly diagnosed with heart failure between 2002 and 2014, with a mean age of 76.7 years and of which 49% were women. We examined five indicators of care: (i) diagnosis care setting (inpatient or outpatient), (ii) posthospitalisation follow-up in primary care, (iii) diagnostic investigations, (iv) prescription of essential drugs, and (v) drug treatment dose. We used Poisson and linear regression models to calculate category-specific risk ratios (RRs) or adjusted differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusting for year of diagnosis, age, sex, region, and socioeconomic status. From 2002 to 2014, indicators of care presented diverging trends. Outpatient diagnoses and follow-up after hospital discharge in primary care declined substantially (ranging from 56% in 2002 to 36% in 2014, RR 0.64 [0.62, 0.67] and 20% to 14%, RR 0.73 [0.65, 0.82], respectively). Primary care referral for diagnostic investigations and appropriate initiation of beta blockers and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) both increased significantly (37% versus 82%, RR 2.24 [2.15, 2.34] and 18% versus 63%, RR 3.48 [2.72, 4.43], respectively). Yet, the average daily dose prescribed remained below guideline recommendations (42% for ACE-Is or ARBs, 29% for beta blockers in 2014) and was largely unchanged beyond the first 30 days after diagnosis. Despite increasing rates of treatment initiation, the overall dose prescribed to patients in the 12 months following diagnosis improved little over the period of study (adjusted difference for the combined dose of beta blocker and ACE-I or ARB: +6% [+2%, +10%]). Women and patients aged over 75 years presented significant gaps across all five indicators of care. Our study was limited by the available clinical information, which did not include exact left ventricular ejection fraction values, investigations performed during hospital admissions, or information about follow-up in community heart failure clinics.

conclusionsManagement of heart failure patients in the UK presents important shortcomings that affect screening, continuity of care, and medication titration and disproportionally impact women and older people. National reporting and incentive schemes confined to individual clinical settings have been insufficient to identify these gaps and address patients' long-term care needs.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCardiovascular AgentsDiagnostic Techniques, CardiovascularDrug PrescriptionsFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHealth Care SurveysHeart FailureHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Physicians'Predictive Value of TestsProfessional Practice GapsCardiovascular Agents

Identifiers

PMID31112552
PMCPMC6528949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.