Search

BACKGROUND: Multiple barriers exist for appropriate use of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 enzyme inhibitors (PCSK9i) in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) with inadequately controlled hypercholesterolemia despite standard therapies. Among these barriers, high payer rejection rates and inadequate prior authorization (PA) documentation by providers hinder optimal use of PCSK9i. OBJECTIVES: To (a) identify and discuss provider and payer discordances on barriers to authorization and use of PCSK9i based on clinical and real-world evidence and (b) align understanding and application of clinical, cost, safety, and efficacy data of PCSK9i. METHODS: Local groups of 3 payers and 3 providers met in 6 separate locations across the United States through a collaborative project of AMCP and PRIME Education. Responses to selected pre- and postmeeting survey questions measured changes in attitudes and beliefs regarding treatment barriers, lipid thresholds for considering PCSK9i therapy, and tactics for improving PA processes. Statistical analysis of inter- and intragroup changes in attitudes were performed by Cox proportional hazards test and Fishers exact test for < 5 variables. RESULTS: The majority of providers and payers (67%-78%) agreed that high patient copayments and inadequate PA documentation were significant barriers to PCSK9i usage. However, payers and providers differed on beliefs that current evidence does not support PCSK9i cost-effectiveness (6% providers, 56% payers; P = 0.003) and that PA presents excessive administrative burden (72% providers, 44% payers; P = 0.09) Average increases pre- to postmeeting were noted in provider beliefs that properly documented PA forms expedite access to PCSK9i (22%-50% increase) and current authorization criteria accurately distinguish patients who benefit most from PCSK9i (6%-22%). Payers decreased in their belief that current authorization criteria accurately distinguish benefiting patients (72%-50%). Providers and payers increased in their belief that PCSK9i are cost-effective (44%-61% and 28%-50%, respectively) and were more willing to consider PCSK9i at the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol threshold of > 70 mg/dL for patients with ASCVD (78%-83% and 44%-67%, respectively) or FH (22%-39% and 22%-33%). Payers were more agreeable to less stringent PA requirements for patients with FH (33%-72%, P = 0.019) and need for standardized PA requirements (50%-83%, P = 0.034); these considerations remained high (89%) among providers after the meeting. Most participants supported educational programs for patient treatment adherence (83%) and physician/staff PA processes (83%-94%). CONCLUSIONS: Provider and payer representatives in 6 distinct geographic locations provided recommendations to improve quality of care in patients eligible for PCSK9i. Participants also provided tactical recommendations for streamlining PA documentation processes and improving awareness of PCSK9i cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy. The majority of participants supported development of universal, standardized patient eligibility criteria and PA forms. DISCLOSURES: The study reported in this article was part of a continuing education program funded by an independent educational grant awarded by Sanofi US and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals to PRIME Education. The grantor had no role in the study design, execution, analysis, or reporting. AMCP received grant funding from PRIME to assist in the study, as well as in writing the manuscript. McCormick, Bhatt, Bays, Taub, Caldwell, Guerin, Steinhoff, and Ahmad received an honorarium from PRIME for serving as faculty for the continuing education program. McCormick, Bhatt, Bays, Taub, Caldwell, Guerin, Steinhoff, and Ahmad were involved as participants in the study. Bhatt discloses the following relationships: Advisory board: Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Level Ex, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regado Biosciences; Board of directors: Boston VA Research Institute, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, TobeSoft; Chair: American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; Data monitoring committees: Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical, now Abbott), Cleveland Clinic (including for the ExCEED trial, funded by Edwards), Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi Sankyo), Population Health Research Institute; Honoraria: American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Vice chair, ACC Accreditation Committee), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor in Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (Editor in Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), K2P (Co-Chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), Slack Publications (Chief Medical Editor, Cardiology Todays Intervention), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (Secretary/Treasurer), WebMD (CME steering committees); Other: Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor), NCDR-ACTION Registry Steering Committee (Chair), VA CART Research and Publications Committee (Chair); Research funding: Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Synaptic, The Medicines Company; Royalties: Elsevier (Editor, Cardiovascular Intervention: A Companion to Braunwalds Heart Disease); Site co-investigator: Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Svelte; Trustee: American College of Cardiology; Unfunded research: FlowCo, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Takeda. Bays research site has received research grants from 89Bio, Acasti, Akcea, Allergan, Alon Medtech/Epitomee, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Axsome, Boehringer Ingelheim, Civi, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Evidera, Gan and Lee, Home Access, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson, Lexicon, Matinas, Merck, Metavant, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Selecta, TIMI, and Urovant. Bays has served as a consultant/advisor for 89Bio, Amarin, Esperion, Matinas, and Gelesis, and speaker for Esperion. McCormick, Caldwell, Guerin, Ahmad, Singh, Moreo, Carter, Heggen, and Sapir have nothing to disclose.

Existing burn center referral criteria were developed several years ago, and subsequent innovations in burn care have occurred. Coupled with frequent errors in the estimation of extent of burn injury and depth by referring providers, patients are both over and under-triaged when the existing criteria are used to support patient care decisions. In the absence of compelling clinical trial data on appropriate burn patient triage, we convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to execute an iterative eDelphi consensus process to facilitate a revision. The eDelphi process panel consisted of n = 61 burn stakeholders and experts and progressed through four rounds before reaching consensus on key clinical domains. The major findings are that 1) burn center consultation is strongly recommended for all patients with deep partial-thickness or deeper burns ≥ 10% TBSA burned, for full-thickness burns ≥ 5% TBSA burned, for children and older adults with specific dressing and medical needs, and for special burn circumstances including electrical, chemical, and radiation injuries; 2) smaller burns are ideally followed in burn center outpatient settings as soon as possible after injury, preferably without delays of a week or more; 3) frostbite, Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TENS, and necrotizing soft-tissue infection patients benefit from burn center treatment; and 4) telemedicine and technological solutions are of likely benefit in achieving this standard. Unlike the original criteria, the revised consensus-based guidelines create a framework promoting communication so that triage and treatment are specifically tailored to individual patient characteristics, injury severity, geography, and the capabilities of referring institutions.

Early excision and autografting are standard care for deeper burns. However, donor sites are a source of significant morbidity. To address this, the ReCell® Autologous Cell Harvesting Device (ReCell) was designed for use at the point-of-care to prepare a noncultured, autologous skin cell suspension (ASCS) capable of epidermal regeneration using minimal donor skin. A prospective study was conducted to evaluate the clinical performance of ReCell vs meshed split-thickness skin grafts (STSG, Control) for the treatment of deep partial-thickness burns. Effectiveness measures were assessed to 1 year for both ASCS and Control treatment sites and donor sites, including the incidence of healing, scarring, and pain. At 4 weeks, 98% of the ASCS-treated sites were healed compared with 100% of the Controls. Pain and assessments of scarring at the treatment sites were reported to be similar between groups. Significant differences were observed between ReCell and Control donor sites. The mean ReCell donor area was approximately 40 times smaller than that of the Control (P < .0001), and after 1 week, significantly more ReCell donor sites were healed than Controls (P = .04). Over the first 16 weeks, patients reported significantly less pain at the ReCell donor sites compared with Controls (P ≤ .05 at each time point). Long-term patients reported higher satisfaction with ReCell donor site outcomes compared with the Controls. This study provides evidence that the treatment of deep partial-thickness burns with ASCS results in comparable healing, with significantly reduced donor site size and pain and improved appearance relative to STSG.

IntroductionIn recent years researchers have reported deficits in the quality of care provided to patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), including low rates of performance on quality measures. We sought to determine the influence of a quality improvement (QI) continuing education program on rheumatologists' performance on national quality measures for RA, along with other measures aligned with National Quality Strategy priorities. Performance was assessed through baseline and post-education chart audits.MethodsTwenty community-based rheumatologists across the United States were recruited to participate in the QI education program and chart audits. Charts were retrospectively audited before (n = 160 charts) and after (n = 160 charts) the rheumatologists participated in a series of accredited QI-focused educational activities that included private audit feedback, small-group webinars, and online- and mobile-accessible print and video activities. The charts were audited for patient demographics and the rheumatologists' documented performance on the 6 quality measures for RA included in the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS). In addition, charts were abstracted for documentation of patient counseling about medication benefits/risks and adherence, lifestyle modifications, and quality of life; assessment of RA medication side effects; and assessment of RA medication adherence.ResultsMean rates of documented performance on 4 of the 6 PQRS measures for RA were significantly higher in the post-education versus baseline charts (absolute increases ranged from 9 to 24% of patient charts). In addition, after the intervention, significantly higher mean rates were observed for patient counseling about medications and quality of life, and for assessments of medication side effects and adherence (absolute increases ranged from 9 to 40% of patient charts).ConclusionThis pragmatic study provides preliminary evidence for the positive influence of QI-focused education in helping rheumatologists improve performance on national quality measures for RA.

State Medical Boards (SMBs) can take severe disciplinary actions (e.g., license revocation or suspension) against physicians who commit egregious wrongdoing in order to protect the public. However, there is noteworthy variability in the extent to which SMBs impose severe disciplinary action. In this manuscript, we present and synthesize a subset of 11 recommendations based on findings from our team's larger consensus-building project that identified a list of 56 policies and legal provisions SMBs can use to better protect patients from egregious wrongdoing by physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]