Background Little is known regarding the adoption of direct thrombin inhibitors in clinical practice. We examine trends in oral anticoagulation for the prevention of thromboembolism in the United States. Methods and Results We used the IMS Health National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a nationally representative audit of office-based providers, to quantify patterns of oral anticoagulant use among all subjects and stratified by clinical indication. We quantified oral anticoagulant expenditures using the IMS Health National Prescription Audit. Between 2007 and 2011, warfarin treatment visits declined from approximately 2.1 million [M] quarterly visits to approximately 1.6M visits. Dabigatran use increased from 0.062M quarterly visits (2010Q4) to 0.363M visits (2011Q4), reflecting its increasing share of oral anticoagulant visits from 3.1% to 18.9%. In contrast to warfarin, the majority of dabigatran visits have been for atrial fibrillation, though this proportion decreased from 92% (2010Q4) to 63% (2011Q4), with concomitant increases in dabigatran’s off-label use. Among atrial fibrillation visits, warfarin use decreased from 55.8% of visits (2010Q4) to 44.4% (2011Q4), while dabigatran use increased from 4.0% to 16.9%. Of atrial fibrillation visits, the fraction not treated with any oral anticoagulants has remained unchanged at approximately 40%. Expenditures related to dabigatran increased rapidly from $16M in 2010Q4 to $166M in 2011Q4, exceeding expenditures on warfarin ($144M) in 2011Q4. Conclusions Dabigatran has been rapidly adopted into ambulatory practice in the United States, primarily for treatment of atrial fibrillation, but increasingly for off-label indications. We did not find evidence that it has increased overall atrial fibrillation treatment rates.

Meta-analyses are becoming increasingly popular, especially in the fields of cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment. They are often considered to be a reliable source of evidence for making healthcare decisions. Unfortunately, problems among meta-analyses such as the misapplication and misinterpretation of statistical methods and tests are long-standing and widespread. The purposes of this statement are to review key steps in the development of a metaanalysis and to provide recommendations that will be useful for carrying out meta-analyses and for readers and journal editors, who must interpret the findings and gauge methodological quality. To make the statement practical and accessible, detailed descriptions of statistical methods have been omitted. Based on a survey of cardiovascular metaanalyses, published literature on methodology, expert consultation, and consensus among the writing group, key recommendations are provided. Recommendations reinforce several current practices, including protocol registration; comprehensive search strategies; methods for data extraction and abstraction; methods for identifying, measuring, and dealing with heterogeneity; and statistical methods for pooling results. Other practices should be discontinued, including the use of levels of evidence and evidence hierarchies to gauge the value and impact of different study designs (including meta-analyses) and the use of structured tools to assess the quality of studies to be included in a metaanalysis. We also recommend choosing a pooling model for conventional meta-analyses (fixed effect or random effects) on the basis of clinical and methodological similarities among studies to be included, rather than the results of a test for statistical heterogeneity. CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES D espite the increasing popularity of meta-analyses and systematic reviews in general, problems with methodology are widespread and frequently undermine the credibility of the results. New guidance is needed for both researchers who carry out meta-analyses and systematic reviews in general and the consumers who read them and rely on the results. The term meta-analysis was coined in 1976 by the American statistician Gene Glass, who wrote, "I use it to refer to the statistical analysis of a large collection of results from individual studies for the purpose of integrating findings. It connotes a rigorous alternative to the casual, narrative discussions of research studies which typify our attempts to make sense of the rapidly expanding literature."1 Meta-analyses are a subcategory of the broader category of studies known as systematic reviews.Qualitative systematic reviews include explicit and detailed methods for identification, selection, and grading the quality of individual studies and overall evidence but do not pool results across studies. Meta-analysis is synonymous with the term quantitative systematic review and by definition includes pooling of results across studies. The emphasis in this statement is on metaanalysis bec...

No abstract

BackgroundThe uptake of digital health technology (DHT) has been surprisingly low in clinical practice. Despite showing great promise to improve patient outcomes and disease management, there is limited information on the factors that contribute to the limited adoption of DHT, particularly for hypertension management.ObjectiveThis scoping review provides a comprehensive summary of barriers to and facilitators of DHT adoption for hypertension management reported in the published literature with a focus on provider- and patient-related barriers and facilitators.MethodsThis review followed the methodological framework developed by Arskey and O’Malley. Systematic literature searches were conducted on PubMed or Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Excerpta Medica database. Articles that reported on barriers to and/or facilitators of digital health adoption for hypertension management published in English between 2008 and 2017 were eligible. Studies not reporting on barriers or facilitators to DHT adoption for management of hypertension were excluded. A total of 2299 articles were identified based on the above criteria after removing duplicates, and they were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 2165 references did not meet the inclusion criteria. After assessing 134 studies in full text, 98 studies were excluded (full texts were either unavailable or studies did not fulfill the inclusion criteria), resulting in a final set of 32 articles. In addition, 4 handpicked articles were also included in the review, making it a total of 36 studies.ResultsA total of 36 studies were selected for data extraction after abstract and full-text screening by 2 independent reviewers. All conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify major themes pertaining to barriers and facilitators of DHT from both provider and patient perspectives. The key facilitators of DHT adoption by physicians that were identified include ease of integration with clinical workflow, improvement in patient outcomes, and technology usability and technical support. Technology usability and timely technical support improved self-management and patient experience, and positive impact on patient-provider communication were most frequently reported facilitators for patients. Barriers to use of DHTs reported by physicians include lack of integration with clinical workflow, lack of validation of technology, and lack of technology usability and technical support. Finally, lack of technology usability and technical support, interference with patient-provider relationship, and lack of validation of technology were the most commonly reported barriers by patients.ConclusionsFindings suggest the settings and context in which DHTs are implemented and individuals involved in implementation influence adoption. Finally, to fully realize the potential of digitally enabled hypertension management, there is a greater need to validate these technologies to provide...

Nearly 90 million Americans live below 200% of the federal poverty threshold. The links between lower socioeconomic status and poor health are clear, and all physicians face the resulting challenges in patient care. Current medical school curricula do not adequately prepare students to address this issue despite recommendations from the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Institute of Medicine. In response, students and faculty at the University of Michigan Medical Center established the Poverty in Healthcare curriculum, which encompasses required learning experiences spanning all four years of undergraduate medical education. This article describes the design and implementation of this curriculum. The authors provide thorough descriptions of the individual learning experiences, including community site visits, longitudinal cases, mini-electives, and family centered experiences. The authors also discuss the history, costs, challenges, and evaluation process related to the Poverty in Healthcare curriculum, including issues specifically related to medical students' involvement in developing and implementing the curriculum. This information may be used as a guide for other medical schools in the development of curricula to address this current gap in medical student education.