Michael B. Rothberg, MD, MPH

In 1984, Jim Fixx, who wrote The Complete Book of Running,¹ went out for his daily run and died of a massive heart attack. He was 48. Unbeknownst to him, he had 3-vessel coronary artery disease.

See related article

His case illustrates the difficulty of diagnosing coronary artery disease in patients who have no symptoms of it. For many, the initial presentation is myocardial infarction or death. Until recently, there was no reliable way to diagnose subclinical coronary artery disease other than angiography, and there is still no way to rule it out. As a result, physicians have concentrated less on diagnosing subclinical disease and more on assessing the risk of myocardial infarction.

ASSESSING RISK

The risk factors for coronary artery disease (age, male sex, smoking, hypertension, and cholesterol) have been well known for half a century. By combining risk factors with the appropriate weighting, it is possible to predict an individual’s risk of a myocardial infarction. 

In 2013, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines applied this risk-based approach to prescribing statins for primary prevention.² Instead of focusing on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration, which by itself is a poor predictor of myocardial infarction, they recommended using the Pooled Cohort Equation³ to determine the risk of a cardiovascular event within 10 years. For patients at high risk (> 7.5%), the benefits of a statin generally outweigh the harms. For those at low risk (< 5%), the opposite is true. For patients in between, there is room for shared decision-making.

Debate has focused on the predictive accuracy of the equation, the threshold for treatment, and the fact that almost all men over 60 qualify for treatment.⁴ These objections stem from the focus on risk rather than on diagnosis of the underlying disease.

Because one-third of “high-risk” patients never develop cardiovascular disease,⁵ the risk-based approach necessitates overtreatment. Those without disease cannot benefit from treatment but nonetheless suffer its side effects, cost, and inconvenience. Raising treatment thresholds (eg, treating only patients whose 10-year risk exceeds 10%) improves the ratio of patients with disease to those without but also misses diseased patients who have few risk factors. “Low risk” is not “no risk.”

TESTING FOR DISEASE IN THOSE AT INTERMEDIATE RISK

Diagnostic testing is preferred if such testing is safe and inexpensive.

In this issue of Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, Parikh and colleagues⁶ review coronary artery calcium scoring, a diagnostic test for coronary artery disease. They conclude that calcium scoring is strongly predictive but should be reserved for patients at intermediate risk to help them decide about treatment. This is clearly the right approach, but the authors leave the term “intermediate” undefined, and their clinical examples offer little guidance as to where the borders lie.

The ACC/AHA guidelines specify a narrow intermediate range (5.0%–7.4%). For these patients, calcium scoring could reclassify most as being at high or low risk, helping to clarify whether statins are indicated.

However, only 12% of patients fall into this category.⁷ What about patients at higher risk? Could they be reclassified as being at low risk if their calcium score was 0?⁸ Conversely, could some low-risk patients discover that they are at high risk and perhaps take action?

The ACC/AHA guidelines recommend against calcium scoring in these circumstances. One concern was that calcium scoring had not been tested with the Pooled Cohort Equation. Another concern related to cost and radiation exposure, but as Parikh et al point out, the cost has now fallen to less than $100, and radiation exposure is similar to that with mammography.

Who, then, should we test? For patients at high or low risk according to the Pooled Cohort Equation, 2 questions determine whether calcium scoring is warranted: how much would an extremely high or low score (ie, 0 or > 400) change the risk of an event, and how likely is an extreme score?

The first question relates to the usefulness of the test, the second to its cost-effectiveness. If even an extreme score cannot move a patient’s risk into or out of the treatment range, then testing is unwarranted. At the same time, if few patients have an extreme score, then cost per test that changes practice will be high.

Because calcium scoring is a direct test for disease, it is extremely predictive. When added to risk-factor models, it substantially improves discrimination⁹ and exhibits excellent calibration.¹⁰ This is true whether the outcome is a major cardiovascular event or death from any cause.

But the calcium score is not strong enough to override all other risk factors. A patient with a predicted 10-year risk of 18% according to the Pooled Cohort Equation and a calcium score of 0 could be reclassified as being at low risk, but a patient with a 10-year predicted risk of 35% could not. The same is true for patients at low risk. A patient with a 4% risk and a calcium score higher than 400 would be reclassified as being at high risk, but not a patient with a 1% risk.

Extreme calcium scores are common, especially in patients at high risk. In the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) cohort, 45% of patients with a 10-year predicted risk of 7.5% to 20% had a calcium score of 0, reclassifying them into the low-risk category.¹¹ Even if the predicted risk was greater than 20%, 1 in 4 patients had a score of 0. In contrast, if the 10-year predicted risk was below 5%, one-fifth of patients had a calcium score greater than 0, but only 4% had a score greater than 100.

Nevertheless, patients in the low-risk category whose baseline risk is close to 5% may wish to undergo calcium scoring, because a positive test opens the door to a potentially lifesaving treatment. In general, the closer patients are to the treatment threshold, the more likely they are to be reclassified by calcium scoring.

The Society for Cardiovascular Computed Tomography currently recommends coronary artery calcium scoring for patients whose 10-year risk is between 5% and 20%.¹² These numbers are easy to remember and a reasonable approximation of the number of patients likely to benefit from testing.

COMBINING CALCIUM SCORING WITH TRADITIONAL RISK FACTORS

Primary care physicians interested in more exact personalized medicine can use a risk calculator derived from the MESA cohort.¹³ Based on 10-year outcomes for 6,814 participants, Blaha et al8 derived and validated this risk-prediction tool incorporating all the elements of the Pooled Cohort Equation in addition to family history, race, and calcium score.

The tool offered good discrimination and calibration when validated against 2 external cohorts (the Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study and the Dallas Heart Study).¹⁰ The C statistics were 0.78 and 0.82, with 10-year risk predicted by the tool within half a percent of the observed event rate in each cohort.

The online calculator displays the 10-year risk based on risk factors alone or including a calcium score, allowing the clinician to gauge the value of testing. For example, a 70-year-old nonsmoking white man with a total cholesterol level of 240 mg/dL, high-density lipo­protein cholesterol 40 mg/dL, and systolic blood pressure 130 mm Hg on amlodipine has a 15.2% 10-year risk (well above the 7.5% threshold for statin therapy). However, if his calcium score is 0, his risk falls to 4.3% (well below the threshold). Sharing such information with patients could help them to decide whether to undergo coronary artery calcium scoring.

Ultimately, the decision to take a statin for primary prevention of coronary artery disease is a personal one. It involves weighing risks, benefits, and preferences. Physicians can facilitate the process by providing information and guidance. Patients are best served by having the most accurate information. In many cases, that information should include calcium scoring.

In 1984, Jim Fixx, who wrote The Complete Book of Running,¹ went out for his daily run and died of a massive heart attack. He was 48. Unbeknownst to him, he had 3-vessel coronary artery disease.

See related article

His case illustrates the difficulty of diagnosing coronary artery disease in patients who have no symptoms of it. For many, the initial presentation is myocardial infarction or death. Until recently, there was no reliable way to diagnose subclinical coronary artery disease other than angiography, and there is still no way to rule it out. As a result, physicians have concentrated less on diagnosing subclinical disease and more on assessing the risk of myocardial infarction.

ASSESSING RISK

The risk factors for coronary artery disease (age, male sex, smoking, hypertension, and cholesterol) have been well known for half a century. By combining risk factors with the appropriate weighting, it is possible to predict an individual’s risk of a myocardial infarction. 

In 2013, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines applied this risk-based approach to prescribing statins for primary prevention.² Instead of focusing on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration, which by itself is a poor predictor of myocardial infarction, they recommended using the Pooled Cohort Equation³ to determine the risk of a cardiovascular event within 10 years. For patients at high risk (> 7.5%), the benefits of a statin generally outweigh the harms. For those at low risk (< 5%), the opposite is true. For patients in between, there is room for shared decision-making.

Debate has focused on the predictive accuracy of the equation, the threshold for treatment, and the fact that almost all men over 60 qualify for treatment.⁴ These objections stem from the focus on risk rather than on diagnosis of the underlying disease.

Because one-third of “high-risk” patients never develop cardiovascular disease,⁵ the risk-based approach necessitates overtreatment. Those without disease cannot benefit from treatment but nonetheless suffer its side effects, cost, and inconvenience. Raising treatment thresholds (eg, treating only patients whose 10-year risk exceeds 10%) improves the ratio of patients with disease to those without but also misses diseased patients who have few risk factors. “Low risk” is not “no risk.”

TESTING FOR DISEASE IN THOSE AT INTERMEDIATE RISK

Diagnostic testing is preferred if such testing is safe and inexpensive.

In this issue of Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, Parikh and colleagues⁶ review coronary artery calcium scoring, a diagnostic test for coronary artery disease. They conclude that calcium scoring is strongly predictive but should be reserved for patients at intermediate risk to help them decide about treatment. This is clearly the right approach, but the authors leave the term “intermediate” undefined, and their clinical examples offer little guidance as to where the borders lie.

The ACC/AHA guidelines specify a narrow intermediate range (5.0%–7.4%). For these patients, calcium scoring could reclassify most as being at high or low risk, helping to clarify whether statins are indicated.

However, only 12% of patients fall into this category.⁷ What about patients at higher risk? Could they be reclassified as being at low risk if their calcium score was 0?⁸ Conversely, could some low-risk patients discover that they are at high risk and perhaps take action?

The ACC/AHA guidelines recommend against calcium scoring in these circumstances. One concern was that calcium scoring had not been tested with the Pooled Cohort Equation. Another concern related to cost and radiation exposure, but as Parikh et al point out, the cost has now fallen to less than $100, and radiation exposure is similar to that with mammography.

Who, then, should we test? For patients at high or low risk according to the Pooled Cohort Equation, 2 questions determine whether calcium scoring is warranted: how much would an extremely high or low score (ie, 0 or > 400) change the risk of an event, and how likely is an extreme score?

The first question relates to the usefulness of the test, the second to its cost-effectiveness. If even an extreme score cannot move a patient’s risk into or out of the treatment range, then testing is unwarranted. At the same time, if few patients have an extreme score, then cost per test that changes practice will be high.

Because calcium scoring is a direct test for disease, it is extremely predictive. When added to risk-factor models, it substantially improves discrimination⁹ and exhibits excellent calibration.¹⁰ This is true whether the outcome is a major cardiovascular event or death from any cause.

But the calcium score is not strong enough to override all other risk factors. A patient with a predicted 10-year risk of 18% according to the Pooled Cohort Equation and a calcium score of 0 could be reclassified as being at low risk, but a patient with a 10-year predicted risk of 35% could not. The same is true for patients at low risk. A patient with a 4% risk and a calcium score higher than 400 would be reclassified as being at high risk, but not a patient with a 1% risk.

Extreme calcium scores are common, especially in patients at high risk. In the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) cohort, 45% of patients with a 10-year predicted risk of 7.5% to 20% had a calcium score of 0, reclassifying them into the low-risk category.¹¹ Even if the predicted risk was greater than 20%, 1 in 4 patients had a score of 0. In contrast, if the 10-year predicted risk was below 5%, one-fifth of patients had a calcium score greater than 0, but only 4% had a score greater than 100.

Nevertheless, patients in the low-risk category whose baseline risk is close to 5% may wish to undergo calcium scoring, because a positive test opens the door to a potentially lifesaving treatment. In general, the closer patients are to the treatment threshold, the more likely they are to be reclassified by calcium scoring.

The Society for Cardiovascular Computed Tomography currently recommends coronary artery calcium scoring for patients whose 10-year risk is between 5% and 20%.¹² These numbers are easy to remember and a reasonable approximation of the number of patients likely to benefit from testing.

COMBINING CALCIUM SCORING WITH TRADITIONAL RISK FACTORS

Primary care physicians interested in more exact personalized medicine can use a risk calculator derived from the MESA cohort.¹³ Based on 10-year outcomes for 6,814 participants, Blaha et al8 derived and validated this risk-prediction tool incorporating all the elements of the Pooled Cohort Equation in addition to family history, race, and calcium score.

The tool offered good discrimination and calibration when validated against 2 external cohorts (the Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study and the Dallas Heart Study).¹⁰ The C statistics were 0.78 and 0.82, with 10-year risk predicted by the tool within half a percent of the observed event rate in each cohort.

The online calculator displays the 10-year risk based on risk factors alone or including a calcium score, allowing the clinician to gauge the value of testing. For example, a 70-year-old nonsmoking white man with a total cholesterol level of 240 mg/dL, high-density lipo­protein cholesterol 40 mg/dL, and systolic blood pressure 130 mm Hg on amlodipine has a 15.2% 10-year risk (well above the 7.5% threshold for statin therapy). However, if his calcium score is 0, his risk falls to 4.3% (well below the threshold). Sharing such information with patients could help them to decide whether to undergo coronary artery calcium scoring.

Ultimately, the decision to take a statin for primary prevention of coronary artery disease is a personal one. It involves weighing risks, benefits, and preferences. Physicians can facilitate the process by providing information and guidance. Patients are best served by having the most accurate information. In many cases, that information should include calcium scoring.

In 1984, Jim Fixx, who wrote The Complete Book of Running,¹ went out for his daily run and died of a massive heart attack. He was 48. Unbeknownst to him, he had 3-vessel coronary artery disease.

See related article

His case illustrates the difficulty of diagnosing coronary artery disease in patients who have no symptoms of it. For many, the initial presentation is myocardial infarction or death. Until recently, there was no reliable way to diagnose subclinical coronary artery disease other than angiography, and there is still no way to rule it out. As a result, physicians have concentrated less on diagnosing subclinical disease and more on assessing the risk of myocardial infarction.

ASSESSING RISK

The risk factors for coronary artery disease (age, male sex, smoking, hypertension, and cholesterol) have been well known for half a century. By combining risk factors with the appropriate weighting, it is possible to predict an individual’s risk of a myocardial infarction. 

In 2013, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines applied this risk-based approach to prescribing statins for primary prevention.² Instead of focusing on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration, which by itself is a poor predictor of myocardial infarction, they recommended using the Pooled Cohort Equation³ to determine the risk of a cardiovascular event within 10 years. For patients at high risk (> 7.5%), the benefits of a statin generally outweigh the harms. For those at low risk (< 5%), the opposite is true. For patients in between, there is room for shared decision-making.

Debate has focused on the predictive accuracy of the equation, the threshold for treatment, and the fact that almost all men over 60 qualify for treatment.⁴ These objections stem from the focus on risk rather than on diagnosis of the underlying disease.

Because one-third of “high-risk” patients never develop cardiovascular disease,⁵ the risk-based approach necessitates overtreatment. Those without disease cannot benefit from treatment but nonetheless suffer its side effects, cost, and inconvenience. Raising treatment thresholds (eg, treating only patients whose 10-year risk exceeds 10%) improves the ratio of patients with disease to those without but also misses diseased patients who have few risk factors. “Low risk” is not “no risk.”

TESTING FOR DISEASE IN THOSE AT INTERMEDIATE RISK

Diagnostic testing is preferred if such testing is safe and inexpensive.

In this issue of Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, Parikh and colleagues⁶ review coronary artery calcium scoring, a diagnostic test for coronary artery disease. They conclude that calcium scoring is strongly predictive but should be reserved for patients at intermediate risk to help them decide about treatment. This is clearly the right approach, but the authors leave the term “intermediate” undefined, and their clinical examples offer little guidance as to where the borders lie.

The ACC/AHA guidelines specify a narrow intermediate range (5.0%–7.4%). For these patients, calcium scoring could reclassify most as being at high or low risk, helping to clarify whether statins are indicated.

However, only 12% of patients fall into this category.⁷ What about patients at higher risk? Could they be reclassified as being at low risk if their calcium score was 0?⁸ Conversely, could some low-risk patients discover that they are at high risk and perhaps take action?

The ACC/AHA guidelines recommend against calcium scoring in these circumstances. One concern was that calcium scoring had not been tested with the Pooled Cohort Equation. Another concern related to cost and radiation exposure, but as Parikh et al point out, the cost has now fallen to less than $100, and radiation exposure is similar to that with mammography.

Who, then, should we test? For patients at high or low risk according to the Pooled Cohort Equation, 2 questions determine whether calcium scoring is warranted: how much would an extremely high or low score (ie, 0 or > 400) change the risk of an event, and how likely is an extreme score?

The first question relates to the usefulness of the test, the second to its cost-effectiveness. If even an extreme score cannot move a patient’s risk into or out of the treatment range, then testing is unwarranted. At the same time, if few patients have an extreme score, then cost per test that changes practice will be high.

Because calcium scoring is a direct test for disease, it is extremely predictive. When added to risk-factor models, it substantially improves discrimination⁹ and exhibits excellent calibration.¹⁰ This is true whether the outcome is a major cardiovascular event or death from any cause.

But the calcium score is not strong enough to override all other risk factors. A patient with a predicted 10-year risk of 18% according to the Pooled Cohort Equation and a calcium score of 0 could be reclassified as being at low risk, but a patient with a 10-year predicted risk of 35% could not. The same is true for patients at low risk. A patient with a 4% risk and a calcium score higher than 400 would be reclassified as being at high risk, but not a patient with a 1% risk.

Extreme calcium scores are common, especially in patients at high risk. In the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) cohort, 45% of patients with a 10-year predicted risk of 7.5% to 20% had a calcium score of 0, reclassifying them into the low-risk category.¹¹ Even if the predicted risk was greater than 20%, 1 in 4 patients had a score of 0. In contrast, if the 10-year predicted risk was below 5%, one-fifth of patients had a calcium score greater than 0, but only 4% had a score greater than 100.

Nevertheless, patients in the low-risk category whose baseline risk is close to 5% may wish to undergo calcium scoring, because a positive test opens the door to a potentially lifesaving treatment. In general, the closer patients are to the treatment threshold, the more likely they are to be reclassified by calcium scoring.

The Society for Cardiovascular Computed Tomography currently recommends coronary artery calcium scoring for patients whose 10-year risk is between 5% and 20%.¹² These numbers are easy to remember and a reasonable approximation of the number of patients likely to benefit from testing.

COMBINING CALCIUM SCORING WITH TRADITIONAL RISK FACTORS

Primary care physicians interested in more exact personalized medicine can use a risk calculator derived from the MESA cohort.¹³ Based on 10-year outcomes for 6,814 participants, Blaha et al8 derived and validated this risk-prediction tool incorporating all the elements of the Pooled Cohort Equation in addition to family history, race, and calcium score.

The tool offered good discrimination and calibration when validated against 2 external cohorts (the Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study and the Dallas Heart Study).¹⁰ The C statistics were 0.78 and 0.82, with 10-year risk predicted by the tool within half a percent of the observed event rate in each cohort.

The online calculator displays the 10-year risk based on risk factors alone or including a calcium score, allowing the clinician to gauge the value of testing. For example, a 70-year-old nonsmoking white man with a total cholesterol level of 240 mg/dL, high-density lipo­protein cholesterol 40 mg/dL, and systolic blood pressure 130 mm Hg on amlodipine has a 15.2% 10-year risk (well above the 7.5% threshold for statin therapy). However, if his calcium score is 0, his risk falls to 4.3% (well below the threshold). Sharing such information with patients could help them to decide whether to undergo coronary artery calcium scoring.

Ultimately, the decision to take a statin for primary prevention of coronary artery disease is a personal one. It involves weighing risks, benefits, and preferences. Physicians can facilitate the process by providing information and guidance. Patients are best served by having the most accurate information. In many cases, that information should include calcium scoring.

Multiple randomized controlled trials have compared percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs optimal medical therapy for patients with chronic stable angina. All have consistently shown that PCI does not reduce the risk of death or even myocardial infarction (MI) but that it may relieve angina temporarily. Nevertheless, PCI is still commonly performed for patients with stable coronary disease, often in the absence of angina, and patients mistakenly believe the procedure is life-saving. Cardiologists may not be aware of patients’ misperceptions, or worse, may encourage them. In either case, if patients do not understand the benefits of the procedure, they cannot give informed consent.

See related editorial

This article reviews the pathophysiology of coronary artery disease, evidence from clinical trials of the value of PCI for chronic stable angina, patient and physician perceptions of PCI, and ways to promote patient-centered, shared decision-making.

CLINICAL CASE: EXERTIONAL ANGINA

While climbing 4 flights of stairs, a 55-year-old man noticed tightness in his chest, which lasted for 5 minutes and resolved spontaneously. Several weeks later, when visiting his primary care physician, he mentioned the episode. He had had no symptoms in the interim, but the physician ordered an exercise stress test.

Six minutes into a standard Bruce protocol, the patient experienced the same chest tightness, accompanied by 1-mm ST-segment depressions in leads II, III, and aVF. He was then referred to a cardiologist, who recommended catheterization.

Catheterization demonstrated a 95% stenosis of the right coronary artery with nonsignificant stenoses of the left anterior descending and circumflex arteries. A drug-eluting stent was placed in the right coronary artery, with no residual stenosis.

Did this intervention likely prevent an MI and perhaps save the man’s life?

HOW MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION HAPPENS

Understanding the pathogenesis of MI is critical to having realistic expectations of the benefits of stent placement.

Doctors often describe coronary atherosclerosis as a plumbing problem, where deposits of cholesterol and fat build up in arterial walls, clogging the pipes and eventually causing a heart attack. This analogy, which has been around since the 1950s, is easy to for patients to grasp and has been popularized in the press and internalized by the public—as one patient with a 95% stenosis put it, “I was 95% dead.” In that model, angioplasty and stenting can resolve the blockage and “fix” the problem, much as a plumber can clear your pipes with a Roto-Rooter.

Despite the visual appeal of this model,¹ it doesn’t accurately convey what we know about the pathophysiology of coronary artery disease. Instead of a gradual buildup of fatty deposits, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol particles infiltrate arterial walls and trigger an inflammatory reaction as they are engulfed by macrophages, leading to a cascade of cytokines and recruitment of more inflammatory cells.² This immune response can eventually cause the rupture of the plaque’s fibrous cap, triggering thrombosis and infarction, often at a site of insignificant stenosis.

In this new model, coronary artery disease is primarily a problem of inflammation distributed throughout the vasculature, rather than a mechanical problem localized to the site of a significant stenosis.

Significant stenosis does not equal unstable plaque

Not all plaques are equally likely to rupture. Stable plaques tend to be long-standing and calcified, with a thick fibrous cap. A stable plaque causing a 95% stenosis may cause symptoms with exertion, but it is unlikely to cause infarction.³ Conversely, rupture-prone plaques may cause little stenosis, but a large and dangerous plaque may be lurking beneath the thin fibrous cap.

Relying on angiography can be misleading. Treating all significant stenoses improves blood flow, but does not reduce the risk of infarction, because infarction most often occurs in areas where the lumen is not obstructed. A plaque causing only 30% stenosis can suddenly rupture, causing thrombosis and complete occlusion.

The current model explains why PCI is no better than optimal medical therapy (ie, risk factor modification, antiplatelet therapy with aspirin, and a statin). Diet, exercise, smoking cessation, and statins target inflammatory processes and lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, while aspirin prevents platelet aggregation, among other likely actions.

The model also explains why coronary artery bypass grafting reduces the risk of MI and death in patients with left main or 3-vessel disease. A patient with generalized coronary artery disease has multiple lesions, many of which do not cause significant stenoses. PCI corrects only a single stenosis, whereas coronary artery bypass grafting circumvents all the vulnerable plaques in a vessel.

THE LANDMARK COURAGE TRIAL

Published in 2007, the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial⁴ randomized more than 2,000 patients to receive either optimal medical therapy plus PCI or optimal medical therapy alone. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause and nonfatal MI. Patients were followed for at least 3 years, and some for as long as 7 years.

There was an initial small upward spike in the primary outcome in the PCI arm due to periprocedural events. By 5 years, the outcomes of the 2 arms converged and then stayed the same for up to 15 years.⁵ The authors concluded that PCI conferred no benefit over optimal medical therapy in the risk of death or MI.

Some doctors dismiss the study because of its stringent entry criteria—of 35,539 patients assessed, only 3,071 met the eligibility criteria. However, the entry criteria were meant to identify patients most likely to benefit from PCI. Many patients who undergo PCI today would not have qualified for the study because they lack objective evidence of ischemia.⁶ To enroll, patients needed a proximal stenosis of at least 70% and objective evidence of ischemia or a coronary stenosis of more than 80% and classic angina. Exclusion criteria disqualified few patients: Canadian Cardiovascular Society class IV angina (ie, angina evoked from minimal activity or at rest); a markedly positive stress test (substantial ST-segment depression or hypotension during stage I of the Bruce protocol); refractory heart failure or cardiogenic shock; an ejection fraction of less than 30%; revascularization within the past 6 months; and coronary anatomy unsuitable for PCI.

Although COURAGE was hailed as a landmark trial, it largely supported the results of previous studies. A meta-analysis of PCI vs optimal medical therapy published in 2005 found no significant differences in death, cardiac death, MI, or nonfatal MI.⁷ MI was actually slightly more common in the PCI group due to the increased risk of MI during the periprocedural period.

Nor has the evidence from COURAGE discouraged additional studies of the same topic. Despite consistent findings that fit with our understanding of coronary disease as inflammation, we continue to conduct studies aimed at addressing significant stenosis, as if that was the problem. Thus, there have been studies of angioplasty alone, followed by studies of bare-metal stents and then drug-eluting stents.

In 2009, Trikalinos et al published a review of 61 randomized controlled trials comprising more than 25,000 patients with stable coronary disease and comparing medical therapy and angioplasty in its various forms over the previous 20 years.⁸ In all direct and indirect comparisons of PCI and medical therapy, there were no improvements in rates of death or MI.

Even so, the studies continue. The most recent “improvement” was the addition of fractional flow reserve, which served as the inclusion criterion for the Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation 2 (FAME 2) trial.⁹ In that study, patients with at least 1 stenosis with a fractional flow reserve less than 0.80 were randomized to PCI plus medical therapy or to medical therapy alone. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, MI, and urgent revascularization. Unfortunately, the study was stopped early when the primary end point was met due to a reduction in the need for urgent revascularization. There was no reduction in the rate of MI (hazard ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.51–2.19).

The reduction in urgent revascularization has also been shown consistently in past studies, but this is the weakest outcome measure because it does not equate to a reduction in the rate of MI. There is no demonstrable harm to putting off stent placement, even in functionally significant arteries, and most patients do not require a stent, even in the future.

In summary, the primary benefit of getting a stent now is a reduced likelihood of needing one later.

PCI MAY IMPROVE ANGINA FASTER

Another important finding of the COURAGE trial was that PCI improved symptoms more than optimal medical therapy.¹⁰ This is not surprising, because angina is often a direct result of a significant stenosis. What was unexpected was that even after PCI, most patients were not symptom-free. At 1 month, significantly more PCI patients were angina-free (42%) than were medical patients (33%). This translates into an absolute risk reduction of 9% or a number needed to treat of 11 to prevent 1 case of angina.

Patients in both groups improved over time, and after 3 years, the difference between the 2 groups was no longer significant: 59% in the PCI group vs 56% in the medical therapy group were angina-free.

A more recent study has raised the possibility that the improvement in angina with PCI is primarily a placebo effect. Researchers in the United Kingdom randomized patients with stable angina and at least a 70% stenosis of one vessel to either PCI or sham PCI, in which they threaded the catheter but did not deploy the stent.¹¹ All patients received aggressive antianginal therapy before the procedure. At 6 weeks, there was improvement in angina in both groups, but no statistically significant difference between them in either exercise time or angina. Approximately half the patients in each group improved by at least 1 grade on the Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina classification, and more than 20% improved 2 grades.

This finding is not without precedent. Ligation of the internal mammary arteries, a popular treatment for angina in the 1950s, often provided dramatic relief of symptoms, until it was proven to be no better than a sham operation.^12,13 More recently, a placebo-controlled trial of percutaneous laser myocardial revascularization also failed to show improvement over a sham treatment, despite promising results from a phase 1 trial.¹⁴ Together, these studies emphasize the subjective nature of angina as an outcome and call into question the routine use of PCI to relieve it.

PCI ENTAILS RISK

PCI entails a small but not inconsequential risk. During the procedure, 2% of patients develop bleeding or blood vessel damage, and another 1% die or have an MI or a stroke. In the first year after stent placement, 3% of patients have a bleeding event from the antiplatelet therapy needed for the stent, and an additional 2% develop a clot in the stent that leads to MI.¹⁵

INFORMED CONSENT IS CRITICAL

As demonstrated above, for patients with stable angina, the only evidence-based benefit of PCI over optimal medical therapy is that symptoms may respond faster. At the same time, there are costs and risks associated with the procedure. Because symptoms are subjective, patients should play a key role in deciding whether PCI is appropriate for them.

The American Medical Association states that a physician providing any treatment or procedure should disclose and discuss with patients the risks and benefits. Unfortunately, a substantial body of evidence demonstrates that this is not occurring in practice.

Patients and cardiologists have conflicting beliefs about PCI

Studies over the past 20 years demonstrate that patients with chronic stable angina consistently overestimate the benefits of PCI, with 71% to 88% believing that it will reduce their chance of death.^16–19 Patients also understand that PCI can relieve their symptoms, though no study seems to have assessed the perceived magnitude of this benefit.

In contrast, when cardiologists were asked about the benefits their patients could expect from PCI, only 20% said that it would reduce mortality and 25% said it would prevent MI.¹⁸ These are still surprisingly high percentages, since the study was conducted after the COURAGE trial.

Nevertheless, these differences in perception show that cardiologists fail to successfully communicate the benefits of the procedure to their patients. Without complete information, patients cannot make informed decisions.

If PCI cannot improve hard outcomes like MI or death in stable coronary disease, why do cardiologists continue to perform it so frequently?

Soon after the COURAGE trial, Lin et al conducted focus groups with cardiologists to find out.²⁰ Some said that they doubted the clinical trial evidence, given the reduction in the cardiac mortality rate over the past 30 years. Others remarked that their overriding goal is to stamp out ischemia, and that once a lesion is found by catheterization, one must proceed with PCI. This has been termed the “oculostenotic reflex,” ie, the interventionist sees coronary artery disease and immediately places a stent.

Atreya et al found objective evidence of this practice.²¹ In a 2016 study of 207 patients with obstructive lesions amenable to PCI, the only factors associated with medical management were those that increased the risk of the procedure: age, chronic kidney disease, distal location of the lesion, and type C lesions (the most difficult ones to treat by PCI). More important, evidence of ischemia, presence of angina, and being on optimal medical therapy or maximal antianginal therapy were not associated with PCI.

When surveyed, cardiologists offered reasons similar to those identified by Lin et al, including a positive stress test (70%) and significant myocardium at risk (50%).¹⁸ Optimal medical therapy failure was cited less often (40%). Over 30% identified relief of chest pain for patients who were not prescribed optimal medical therapy. Another 30% said that patient anxiety contributed to their decision, but patients who reported anxiety were not more likely to get PCI than those who did not.

True informed consent rarely occurs

Surveys of patients and recordings of doctor visits suggest that doctors often discuss the risks of the procedure but rarely accurately describe the benefits or mention alternative treatments, including optimal medical therapy.

Fowler et al²² surveyed 472 Medicare patients who had undergone PCI in the past year about their consent discussion, particularly regarding alternative options. Only 6% of patients recalled discussing medication as a serious option with their doctor.

In 2 published studies,^23,24 we analyzed recorded conversations between doctors and patients in which angiography and PCI were discussed.

In a qualitative assessment of how cardiologists presented the rationale for PCI to patients,²³ we observed that cardiologists gave an accurate presentation of the benefits in only 5% of cases. In 13% of the conversations the benefits were explicitly overstated (eg, “If you don’t do it [angiogram/PCI], what could happen? Well, you could…have a heart attack involving that area which can lead to a sudden death”). In another 35% of cases, physicians offered an implicit overstatement of the benefit by saying they could “fix” the problem (eg, “So that’s where we start thinking, Well maybe we better try to fix that [blockage]”), without specifically stating that fixing the problem would offer any benefit. Patients were left to fill in the blanks. Conversations frequently focused on the rationale for performing PCI (eg, ischemia on a stress test) and a description of the procedure, rather than on the risks and benefits.

In a quantitative study of the same data set, we assessed how often physicians addressed the 7 elements of informed decision-making as defined by Braddock et al.²⁴

• Explaining the patient’s role in decision-making (ie, that the patient has a choice to make) was present in half of the conversations. Sometimes a doctor would simply say, “The next step is to perform catheterization.”
• Discussion of clinical issues (eg, having a blockage, stress test results) was performed in almost every case, demonstrating physicians’ comfort with that element.
• Discussing treatment alternatives occurred in only 1 in 4 conversations. This was more frequent than previously reported, and appeared most often when patients expressed hesitancy about proceeding to PCI.
• Discussing pros and cons of the alternatives was done in 42%.
• Uncertainty about the procedure (eg, that it might not relieve the angina) was expressed in only 10% of conversations.
• Assessment of patient understanding was done in 65% of cases. This included even minimal efforts (eg, “Do you have any questions?”). More advanced methods such as teach-back were never used.
• Exploration of patient preferences (eg, asking patients which treatment they prefer, or attempting to understand how angina affects a patient’s life) the final element, occurred in 73% of conversations.

Only 3% of the conversations contained all 7 elements. Even using a more relaxed definition of 3 critical elements (ie, discussing clinical issues, treatment alternatives, and pros and cons), only 13% of conversations included them all.

Discussion affects decisions

Informed decision-making is not only important because of its ethical implications. Offering patients more information was associated with their choosing not to have PCI. The probability of a patient undergoing PCI was negatively associated with 3 specific elements of informed decision-making. Patients were less likely to choose PCI if the patient’s role in decision-making was discussed (61% vs 86% chose PCI, P < .03); if alternatives were discussed (31% vs 89% chose PCI, P < .01); and if uncertainties were discussed (17% vs 80% chose PCI, P < .01).

There was also a linear relationship between the total number of elements discussed and the probability of choosing PCI: it ranged from 100% of patients choosing PCI when just 1 element was present to 3% of patients choosing PCI when all 7 elements were present. The relationship is not entirely causal, since doctors were more likely to talk about alternatives and risks if patients hesitated and raised questions. Cautious patients received more information.

From these observational studies, we know that physicians do not generally communicate the benefits of PCI, and patients make incorrect assumptions about the benefits they can expect. We know that those who receive more information are less likely to choose PCI, but what would happen if patients were randomly assigned to receive complete information?

We conducted an online survey of more than 1,000 participants over age 50 who had never undergone PCI, asking them to imagine visiting a cardiologist after having a positive stress test for stable chest pain.²⁵ Three intervention groups read different scenarios couched as information provided by their cardiologist:

• The “standard care” group received no specific information about the effects of PCI on the risk of myocardial infarction
• The “specific information” group was specifically told that PCI does not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction
• The “explanatory information” group was told how medications work and why PCI does not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction.

All 3 groups received information about the risks of PCI, its role in reducing angina, and the risks and benefits of optimal medical therapy.

After reading their scenario, all participants completed an identical questionnaire, which asked if they would opt for PCI, medical therapy, or both. Overall, 55% chose PCI, ranging from 70% in the standard care group to 46% in the group given explanatory information. Rates in the specific-information and explanatory-information groups were not statistically different from each other, but both were significantly different from that in the standard-care group. Interestingly, the more information patients were given about PCI, the more likely they were to choose optimal medical therapy.

After reading the scenario, participants were also asked if PCI would “prevent a heart attack.” Of those who received standard care, 71% endorsed that belief, which is remarkably similar to studies of real patients who have received standard care. In contrast, only 39% of those given specific information and 31% given explanatory information held that belief. Moreover, the belief that PCI prevented MI was the strongest predictor of choosing PCI (odds ratio 5.82, 95% confidence interval 4.13–8.26).²⁵

Interestingly, 52% of the standard care group falsely remembered that the doctor had told them that PCI would prevent an MI, even though the doctor said nothing about it one way or the other. It appears that participants were projecting their own beliefs onto the encounter. This highlights the importance of providing full information to patients who are considering this procedure.

TOWARD SHARED DECISION-MAKING

Shared decision-making is a process in which physicians enter into a partnership with a patient, offer information, elicit the patient’s preferences, and then come to a decision in concert with the patient.

Although many decisions can and should involve elements of shared decision-making, the decision to proceed with PCI for stable angina is particularly well-suited to shared decision-making. This is because the benefit of PCI depends on the value a patient attaches to being free of angina sooner. Since there is no difference in the risk of MI or death, the patient must decide if the risks of the procedure and the inconvenience of taking dual antiplatelet therapy are worth the benefit of improving symptoms faster. Presumably, patients who have more severe symptoms or experienced side effects from antianginal therapy would be more likely to choose PCI.

Despite having substantial experience educating patients, most physicians are unfamiliar with the process of shared decision-making. In particular, the process of eliciting preferences is often overlooked.

To address this issue, researchers at the Mayo Clinic developed a decision aid that compares PCI plus optimal medical therapy vs optimal medical therapy alone in an easily understandable information card.¹⁵ On one side, the 2 options are clearly stated, with the magnitude of symptom improvement over time graphically illustrated and the statement, “NO DIFFERENCE in heart attack or death,” prominently displayed. The back of the card discusses the risks of each option in easily understood tables.

The decision aid was compared with standard care in a randomized trial involving patients who were referred for catheterization and possible PCI.²⁶ The decision aid improved patients’ overall knowledge about PCI. In particular, 60% of those who used the decision aid knew that PCI did not prevent death or MI vs 40% of usual-care patients—results similar to those of the online experiment.

Interestingly, the decision about whether to undergo PCI did not differ significantly between the 2 groups, although there was a trend toward more patients in the decision-aid group choosing medical therapy alone (53%) vs the standard-care patients (39%).

To understand why the decision aid did not make more of a difference, the investigators performed qualitative interviews of the cardiologists in the study.²⁷ One theme was the timing of the intervention. Patients using the decision aid had already been referred for catheterization, and some felt the process should have occurred earlier. Engaging in shared decision-making with a general cardiologist before referral could help to improve the quality of patient decisions.

Cardiologists also noted the difficulty in changing their work flow to incorporate the decision aid. Although some embraced the idea of shared decision-making, others were concerned that many patients could not participate, and there was confusion about the difference between an educational tool, which could be used by a patient alone, and a decision aid, which is meant to generate discussion between the doctor and patient. Some expressed interest in using the tool in the future.

These findings serve to emphasize that providing information alone is not enough. If the physician does not “buy in” to the idea of shared decision-making, it will not occur.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Based on the pathophysiology of coronary artery disease and the results of multiple randomized controlled trials, it is evident that PCI does not prevent heart attacks in patients with chronic stable angina. However, most patients who undergo PCI are unaware of this and therefore do not truly give informed consent. In the absence of explicit information to the contrary, most patients with stable angina assume that PCI prevents MI and thus are biased toward choosing PCI.

Even minimal amounts of explicit information can partially overcome that bias and influence decision-making. In particular, explaining why PCI does not prevent MI was the most effective means of overcoming the bias.

To this end, shared decision aids may help physicians to engage in shared decision-making. Shared decision-making is most likely to occur if physicians are trained in the concept of shared decision-making, are committed to practicing it, and can fit it into their work flow. Ideally, this would occur in the office of a general cardiologist before referral for PCI.

For those practicing in accountable-care organizations, Medicare has recently introduced the shared decision-making model for 6 preference-sensitive conditions, including stable ischemic heart disease. Participants in this program will have the opportunity to receive payments for shared decision-making services and to share in any savings that result from reduced use of resources. Use of these tools holds the promise for providing more patient-centered care at lower cost.

Multiple randomized controlled trials have compared percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs optimal medical therapy for patients with chronic stable angina. All have consistently shown that PCI does not reduce the risk of death or even myocardial infarction (MI) but that it may relieve angina temporarily. Nevertheless, PCI is still commonly performed for patients with stable coronary disease, often in the absence of angina, and patients mistakenly believe the procedure is life-saving. Cardiologists may not be aware of patients’ misperceptions, or worse, may encourage them. In either case, if patients do not understand the benefits of the procedure, they cannot give informed consent.

See related editorial

This article reviews the pathophysiology of coronary artery disease, evidence from clinical trials of the value of PCI for chronic stable angina, patient and physician perceptions of PCI, and ways to promote patient-centered, shared decision-making.

CLINICAL CASE: EXERTIONAL ANGINA

While climbing 4 flights of stairs, a 55-year-old man noticed tightness in his chest, which lasted for 5 minutes and resolved spontaneously. Several weeks later, when visiting his primary care physician, he mentioned the episode. He had had no symptoms in the interim, but the physician ordered an exercise stress test.

Six minutes into a standard Bruce protocol, the patient experienced the same chest tightness, accompanied by 1-mm ST-segment depressions in leads II, III, and aVF. He was then referred to a cardiologist, who recommended catheterization.

Catheterization demonstrated a 95% stenosis of the right coronary artery with nonsignificant stenoses of the left anterior descending and circumflex arteries. A drug-eluting stent was placed in the right coronary artery, with no residual stenosis.

Did this intervention likely prevent an MI and perhaps save the man’s life?

HOW MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION HAPPENS

Understanding the pathogenesis of MI is critical to having realistic expectations of the benefits of stent placement.

Doctors often describe coronary atherosclerosis as a plumbing problem, where deposits of cholesterol and fat build up in arterial walls, clogging the pipes and eventually causing a heart attack. This analogy, which has been around since the 1950s, is easy to for patients to grasp and has been popularized in the press and internalized by the public—as one patient with a 95% stenosis put it, “I was 95% dead.” In that model, angioplasty and stenting can resolve the blockage and “fix” the problem, much as a plumber can clear your pipes with a Roto-Rooter.

Despite the visual appeal of this model,¹ it doesn’t accurately convey what we know about the pathophysiology of coronary artery disease. Instead of a gradual buildup of fatty deposits, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol particles infiltrate arterial walls and trigger an inflammatory reaction as they are engulfed by macrophages, leading to a cascade of cytokines and recruitment of more inflammatory cells.² This immune response can eventually cause the rupture of the plaque’s fibrous cap, triggering thrombosis and infarction, often at a site of insignificant stenosis.

In this new model, coronary artery disease is primarily a problem of inflammation distributed throughout the vasculature, rather than a mechanical problem localized to the site of a significant stenosis.

Significant stenosis does not equal unstable plaque

Not all plaques are equally likely to rupture. Stable plaques tend to be long-standing and calcified, with a thick fibrous cap. A stable plaque causing a 95% stenosis may cause symptoms with exertion, but it is unlikely to cause infarction.³ Conversely, rupture-prone plaques may cause little stenosis, but a large and dangerous plaque may be lurking beneath the thin fibrous cap.

Relying on angiography can be misleading. Treating all significant stenoses improves blood flow, but does not reduce the risk of infarction, because infarction most often occurs in areas where the lumen is not obstructed. A plaque causing only 30% stenosis can suddenly rupture, causing thrombosis and complete occlusion.

The current model explains why PCI is no better than optimal medical therapy (ie, risk factor modification, antiplatelet therapy with aspirin, and a statin). Diet, exercise, smoking cessation, and statins target inflammatory processes and lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, while aspirin prevents platelet aggregation, among other likely actions.

The model also explains why coronary artery bypass grafting reduces the risk of MI and death in patients with left main or 3-vessel disease. A patient with generalized coronary artery disease has multiple lesions, many of which do not cause significant stenoses. PCI corrects only a single stenosis, whereas coronary artery bypass grafting circumvents all the vulnerable plaques in a vessel.

THE LANDMARK COURAGE TRIAL

Published in 2007, the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial⁴ randomized more than 2,000 patients to receive either optimal medical therapy plus PCI or optimal medical therapy alone. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause and nonfatal MI. Patients were followed for at least 3 years, and some for as long as 7 years.

There was an initial small upward spike in the primary outcome in the PCI arm due to periprocedural events. By 5 years, the outcomes of the 2 arms converged and then stayed the same for up to 15 years.⁵ The authors concluded that PCI conferred no benefit over optimal medical therapy in the risk of death or MI.

Some doctors dismiss the study because of its stringent entry criteria—of 35,539 patients assessed, only 3,071 met the eligibility criteria. However, the entry criteria were meant to identify patients most likely to benefit from PCI. Many patients who undergo PCI today would not have qualified for the study because they lack objective evidence of ischemia.⁶ To enroll, patients needed a proximal stenosis of at least 70% and objective evidence of ischemia or a coronary stenosis of more than 80% and classic angina. Exclusion criteria disqualified few patients: Canadian Cardiovascular Society class IV angina (ie, angina evoked from minimal activity or at rest); a markedly positive stress test (substantial ST-segment depression or hypotension during stage I of the Bruce protocol); refractory heart failure or cardiogenic shock; an ejection fraction of less than 30%; revascularization within the past 6 months; and coronary anatomy unsuitable for PCI.

Although COURAGE was hailed as a landmark trial, it largely supported the results of previous studies. A meta-analysis of PCI vs optimal medical therapy published in 2005 found no significant differences in death, cardiac death, MI, or nonfatal MI.⁷ MI was actually slightly more common in the PCI group due to the increased risk of MI during the periprocedural period.

Nor has the evidence from COURAGE discouraged additional studies of the same topic. Despite consistent findings that fit with our understanding of coronary disease as inflammation, we continue to conduct studies aimed at addressing significant stenosis, as if that was the problem. Thus, there have been studies of angioplasty alone, followed by studies of bare-metal stents and then drug-eluting stents.

In 2009, Trikalinos et al published a review of 61 randomized controlled trials comprising more than 25,000 patients with stable coronary disease and comparing medical therapy and angioplasty in its various forms over the previous 20 years.⁸ In all direct and indirect comparisons of PCI and medical therapy, there were no improvements in rates of death or MI.

Even so, the studies continue. The most recent “improvement” was the addition of fractional flow reserve, which served as the inclusion criterion for the Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation 2 (FAME 2) trial.⁹ In that study, patients with at least 1 stenosis with a fractional flow reserve less than 0.80 were randomized to PCI plus medical therapy or to medical therapy alone. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, MI, and urgent revascularization. Unfortunately, the study was stopped early when the primary end point was met due to a reduction in the need for urgent revascularization. There was no reduction in the rate of MI (hazard ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.51–2.19).

The reduction in urgent revascularization has also been shown consistently in past studies, but this is the weakest outcome measure because it does not equate to a reduction in the rate of MI. There is no demonstrable harm to putting off stent placement, even in functionally significant arteries, and most patients do not require a stent, even in the future.

In summary, the primary benefit of getting a stent now is a reduced likelihood of needing one later.

PCI MAY IMPROVE ANGINA FASTER

Another important finding of the COURAGE trial was that PCI improved symptoms more than optimal medical therapy.¹⁰ This is not surprising, because angina is often a direct result of a significant stenosis. What was unexpected was that even after PCI, most patients were not symptom-free. At 1 month, significantly more PCI patients were angina-free (42%) than were medical patients (33%). This translates into an absolute risk reduction of 9% or a number needed to treat of 11 to prevent 1 case of angina.

Patients in both groups improved over time, and after 3 years, the difference between the 2 groups was no longer significant: 59% in the PCI group vs 56% in the medical therapy group were angina-free.

A more recent study has raised the possibility that the improvement in angina with PCI is primarily a placebo effect. Researchers in the United Kingdom randomized patients with stable angina and at least a 70% stenosis of one vessel to either PCI or sham PCI, in which they threaded the catheter but did not deploy the stent.¹¹ All patients received aggressive antianginal therapy before the procedure. At 6 weeks, there was improvement in angina in both groups, but no statistically significant difference between them in either exercise time or angina. Approximately half the patients in each group improved by at least 1 grade on the Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina classification, and more than 20% improved 2 grades.

This finding is not without precedent. Ligation of the internal mammary arteries, a popular treatment for angina in the 1950s, often provided dramatic relief of symptoms, until it was proven to be no better than a sham operation.^12,13 More recently, a placebo-controlled trial of percutaneous laser myocardial revascularization also failed to show improvement over a sham treatment, despite promising results from a phase 1 trial.¹⁴ Together, these studies emphasize the subjective nature of angina as an outcome and call into question the routine use of PCI to relieve it.

PCI ENTAILS RISK

PCI entails a small but not inconsequential risk. During the procedure, 2% of patients develop bleeding or blood vessel damage, and another 1% die or have an MI or a stroke. In the first year after stent placement, 3% of patients have a bleeding event from the antiplatelet therapy needed for the stent, and an additional 2% develop a clot in the stent that leads to MI.¹⁵

INFORMED CONSENT IS CRITICAL

As demonstrated above, for patients with stable angina, the only evidence-based benefit of PCI over optimal medical therapy is that symptoms may respond faster. At the same time, there are costs and risks associated with the procedure. Because symptoms are subjective, patients should play a key role in deciding whether PCI is appropriate for them.

The American Medical Association states that a physician providing any treatment or procedure should disclose and discuss with patients the risks and benefits. Unfortunately, a substantial body of evidence demonstrates that this is not occurring in practice.

Patients and cardiologists have conflicting beliefs about PCI

Studies over the past 20 years demonstrate that patients with chronic stable angina consistently overestimate the benefits of PCI, with 71% to 88% believing that it will reduce their chance of death.^16–19 Patients also understand that PCI can relieve their symptoms, though no study seems to have assessed the perceived magnitude of this benefit.

In contrast, when cardiologists were asked about the benefits their patients could expect from PCI, only 20% said that it would reduce mortality and 25% said it would prevent MI.¹⁸ These are still surprisingly high percentages, since the study was conducted after the COURAGE trial.

Nevertheless, these differences in perception show that cardiologists fail to successfully communicate the benefits of the procedure to their patients. Without complete information, patients cannot make informed decisions.

If PCI cannot improve hard outcomes like MI or death in stable coronary disease, why do cardiologists continue to perform it so frequently?

Soon after the COURAGE trial, Lin et al conducted focus groups with cardiologists to find out.²⁰ Some said that they doubted the clinical trial evidence, given the reduction in the cardiac mortality rate over the past 30 years. Others remarked that their overriding goal is to stamp out ischemia, and that once a lesion is found by catheterization, one must proceed with PCI. This has been termed the “oculostenotic reflex,” ie, the interventionist sees coronary artery disease and immediately places a stent.

Atreya et al found objective evidence of this practice.²¹ In a 2016 study of 207 patients with obstructive lesions amenable to PCI, the only factors associated with medical management were those that increased the risk of the procedure: age, chronic kidney disease, distal location of the lesion, and type C lesions (the most difficult ones to treat by PCI). More important, evidence of ischemia, presence of angina, and being on optimal medical therapy or maximal antianginal therapy were not associated with PCI.

When surveyed, cardiologists offered reasons similar to those identified by Lin et al, including a positive stress test (70%) and significant myocardium at risk (50%).¹⁸ Optimal medical therapy failure was cited less often (40%). Over 30% identified relief of chest pain for patients who were not prescribed optimal medical therapy. Another 30% said that patient anxiety contributed to their decision, but patients who reported anxiety were not more likely to get PCI than those who did not.

True informed consent rarely occurs

Surveys of patients and recordings of doctor visits suggest that doctors often discuss the risks of the procedure but rarely accurately describe the benefits or mention alternative treatments, including optimal medical therapy.

Fowler et al²² surveyed 472 Medicare patients who had undergone PCI in the past year about their consent discussion, particularly regarding alternative options. Only 6% of patients recalled discussing medication as a serious option with their doctor.

In 2 published studies,^23,24 we analyzed recorded conversations between doctors and patients in which angiography and PCI were discussed.

In a qualitative assessment of how cardiologists presented the rationale for PCI to patients,²³ we observed that cardiologists gave an accurate presentation of the benefits in only 5% of cases. In 13% of the conversations the benefits were explicitly overstated (eg, “If you don’t do it [angiogram/PCI], what could happen? Well, you could…have a heart attack involving that area which can lead to a sudden death”). In another 35% of cases, physicians offered an implicit overstatement of the benefit by saying they could “fix” the problem (eg, “So that’s where we start thinking, Well maybe we better try to fix that [blockage]”), without specifically stating that fixing the problem would offer any benefit. Patients were left to fill in the blanks. Conversations frequently focused on the rationale for performing PCI (eg, ischemia on a stress test) and a description of the procedure, rather than on the risks and benefits.

In a quantitative study of the same data set, we assessed how often physicians addressed the 7 elements of informed decision-making as defined by Braddock et al.²⁴

• Explaining the patient’s role in decision-making (ie, that the patient has a choice to make) was present in half of the conversations. Sometimes a doctor would simply say, “The next step is to perform catheterization.”
• Discussion of clinical issues (eg, having a blockage, stress test results) was performed in almost every case, demonstrating physicians’ comfort with that element.
• Discussing treatment alternatives occurred in only 1 in 4 conversations. This was more frequent than previously reported, and appeared most often when patients expressed hesitancy about proceeding to PCI.
• Discussing pros and cons of the alternatives was done in 42%.
• Uncertainty about the procedure (eg, that it might not relieve the angina) was expressed in only 10% of conversations.
• Assessment of patient understanding was done in 65% of cases. This included even minimal efforts (eg, “Do you have any questions?”). More advanced methods such as teach-back were never used.
• Exploration of patient preferences (eg, asking patients which treatment they prefer, or attempting to understand how angina affects a patient’s life) the final element, occurred in 73% of conversations.

Only 3% of the conversations contained all 7 elements. Even using a more relaxed definition of 3 critical elements (ie, discussing clinical issues, treatment alternatives, and pros and cons), only 13% of conversations included them all.

Discussion affects decisions

Informed decision-making is not only important because of its ethical implications. Offering patients more information was associated with their choosing not to have PCI. The probability of a patient undergoing PCI was negatively associated with 3 specific elements of informed decision-making. Patients were less likely to choose PCI if the patient’s role in decision-making was discussed (61% vs 86% chose PCI, P < .03); if alternatives were discussed (31% vs 89% chose PCI, P < .01); and if uncertainties were discussed (17% vs 80% chose PCI, P < .01).

There was also a linear relationship between the total number of elements discussed and the probability of choosing PCI: it ranged from 100% of patients choosing PCI when just 1 element was present to 3% of patients choosing PCI when all 7 elements were present. The relationship is not entirely causal, since doctors were more likely to talk about alternatives and risks if patients hesitated and raised questions. Cautious patients received more information.

From these observational studies, we know that physicians do not generally communicate the benefits of PCI, and patients make incorrect assumptions about the benefits they can expect. We know that those who receive more information are less likely to choose PCI, but what would happen if patients were randomly assigned to receive complete information?

We conducted an online survey of more than 1,000 participants over age 50 who had never undergone PCI, asking them to imagine visiting a cardiologist after having a positive stress test for stable chest pain.²⁵ Three intervention groups read different scenarios couched as information provided by their cardiologist:

• The “standard care” group received no specific information about the effects of PCI on the risk of myocardial infarction
• The “specific information” group was specifically told that PCI does not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction
• The “explanatory information” group was told how medications work and why PCI does not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction.

All 3 groups received information about the risks of PCI, its role in reducing angina, and the risks and benefits of optimal medical therapy.

After reading their scenario, all participants completed an identical questionnaire, which asked if they would opt for PCI, medical therapy, or both. Overall, 55% chose PCI, ranging from 70% in the standard care group to 46% in the group given explanatory information. Rates in the specific-information and explanatory-information groups were not statistically different from each other, but both were significantly different from that in the standard-care group. Interestingly, the more information patients were given about PCI, the more likely they were to choose optimal medical therapy.

After reading the scenario, participants were also asked if PCI would “prevent a heart attack.” Of those who received standard care, 71% endorsed that belief, which is remarkably similar to studies of real patients who have received standard care. In contrast, only 39% of those given specific information and 31% given explanatory information held that belief. Moreover, the belief that PCI prevented MI was the strongest predictor of choosing PCI (odds ratio 5.82, 95% confidence interval 4.13–8.26).²⁵

Interestingly, 52% of the standard care group falsely remembered that the doctor had told them that PCI would prevent an MI, even though the doctor said nothing about it one way or the other. It appears that participants were projecting their own beliefs onto the encounter. This highlights the importance of providing full information to patients who are considering this procedure.

TOWARD SHARED DECISION-MAKING

Shared decision-making is a process in which physicians enter into a partnership with a patient, offer information, elicit the patient’s preferences, and then come to a decision in concert with the patient.

Although many decisions can and should involve elements of shared decision-making, the decision to proceed with PCI for stable angina is particularly well-suited to shared decision-making. This is because the benefit of PCI depends on the value a patient attaches to being free of angina sooner. Since there is no difference in the risk of MI or death, the patient must decide if the risks of the procedure and the inconvenience of taking dual antiplatelet therapy are worth the benefit of improving symptoms faster. Presumably, patients who have more severe symptoms or experienced side effects from antianginal therapy would be more likely to choose PCI.

Despite having substantial experience educating patients, most physicians are unfamiliar with the process of shared decision-making. In particular, the process of eliciting preferences is often overlooked.

To address this issue, researchers at the Mayo Clinic developed a decision aid that compares PCI plus optimal medical therapy vs optimal medical therapy alone in an easily understandable information card.¹⁵ On one side, the 2 options are clearly stated, with the magnitude of symptom improvement over time graphically illustrated and the statement, “NO DIFFERENCE in heart attack or death,” prominently displayed. The back of the card discusses the risks of each option in easily understood tables.

The decision aid was compared with standard care in a randomized trial involving patients who were referred for catheterization and possible PCI.²⁶ The decision aid improved patients’ overall knowledge about PCI. In particular, 60% of those who used the decision aid knew that PCI did not prevent death or MI vs 40% of usual-care patients—results similar to those of the online experiment.

Interestingly, the decision about whether to undergo PCI did not differ significantly between the 2 groups, although there was a trend toward more patients in the decision-aid group choosing medical therapy alone (53%) vs the standard-care patients (39%).

To understand why the decision aid did not make more of a difference, the investigators performed qualitative interviews of the cardiologists in the study.²⁷ One theme was the timing of the intervention. Patients using the decision aid had already been referred for catheterization, and some felt the process should have occurred earlier. Engaging in shared decision-making with a general cardiologist before referral could help to improve the quality of patient decisions.

Cardiologists also noted the difficulty in changing their work flow to incorporate the decision aid. Although some embraced the idea of shared decision-making, others were concerned that many patients could not participate, and there was confusion about the difference between an educational tool, which could be used by a patient alone, and a decision aid, which is meant to generate discussion between the doctor and patient. Some expressed interest in using the tool in the future.

These findings serve to emphasize that providing information alone is not enough. If the physician does not “buy in” to the idea of shared decision-making, it will not occur.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Based on the pathophysiology of coronary artery disease and the results of multiple randomized controlled trials, it is evident that PCI does not prevent heart attacks in patients with chronic stable angina. However, most patients who undergo PCI are unaware of this and therefore do not truly give informed consent. In the absence of explicit information to the contrary, most patients with stable angina assume that PCI prevents MI and thus are biased toward choosing PCI.

Even minimal amounts of explicit information can partially overcome that bias and influence decision-making. In particular, explaining why PCI does not prevent MI was the most effective means of overcoming the bias.

To this end, shared decision aids may help physicians to engage in shared decision-making. Shared decision-making is most likely to occur if physicians are trained in the concept of shared decision-making, are committed to practicing it, and can fit it into their work flow. Ideally, this would occur in the office of a general cardiologist before referral for PCI.

For those practicing in accountable-care organizations, Medicare has recently introduced the shared decision-making model for 6 preference-sensitive conditions, including stable ischemic heart disease. Participants in this program will have the opportunity to receive payments for shared decision-making services and to share in any savings that result from reduced use of resources. Use of these tools holds the promise for providing more patient-centered care at lower cost.

Multiple randomized controlled trials have compared percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs optimal medical therapy for patients with chronic stable angina. All have consistently shown that PCI does not reduce the risk of death or even myocardial infarction (MI) but that it may relieve angina temporarily. Nevertheless, PCI is still commonly performed for patients with stable coronary disease, often in the absence of angina, and patients mistakenly believe the procedure is life-saving. Cardiologists may not be aware of patients’ misperceptions, or worse, may encourage them. In either case, if patients do not understand the benefits of the procedure, they cannot give informed consent.

See related editorial

This article reviews the pathophysiology of coronary artery disease, evidence from clinical trials of the value of PCI for chronic stable angina, patient and physician perceptions of PCI, and ways to promote patient-centered, shared decision-making.

CLINICAL CASE: EXERTIONAL ANGINA

While climbing 4 flights of stairs, a 55-year-old man noticed tightness in his chest, which lasted for 5 minutes and resolved spontaneously. Several weeks later, when visiting his primary care physician, he mentioned the episode. He had had no symptoms in the interim, but the physician ordered an exercise stress test.

Six minutes into a standard Bruce protocol, the patient experienced the same chest tightness, accompanied by 1-mm ST-segment depressions in leads II, III, and aVF. He was then referred to a cardiologist, who recommended catheterization.

Catheterization demonstrated a 95% stenosis of the right coronary artery with nonsignificant stenoses of the left anterior descending and circumflex arteries. A drug-eluting stent was placed in the right coronary artery, with no residual stenosis.

Did this intervention likely prevent an MI and perhaps save the man’s life?

HOW MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION HAPPENS

Understanding the pathogenesis of MI is critical to having realistic expectations of the benefits of stent placement.

Doctors often describe coronary atherosclerosis as a plumbing problem, where deposits of cholesterol and fat build up in arterial walls, clogging the pipes and eventually causing a heart attack. This analogy, which has been around since the 1950s, is easy to for patients to grasp and has been popularized in the press and internalized by the public—as one patient with a 95% stenosis put it, “I was 95% dead.” In that model, angioplasty and stenting can resolve the blockage and “fix” the problem, much as a plumber can clear your pipes with a Roto-Rooter.

Despite the visual appeal of this model,¹ it doesn’t accurately convey what we know about the pathophysiology of coronary artery disease. Instead of a gradual buildup of fatty deposits, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol particles infiltrate arterial walls and trigger an inflammatory reaction as they are engulfed by macrophages, leading to a cascade of cytokines and recruitment of more inflammatory cells.² This immune response can eventually cause the rupture of the plaque’s fibrous cap, triggering thrombosis and infarction, often at a site of insignificant stenosis.

In this new model, coronary artery disease is primarily a problem of inflammation distributed throughout the vasculature, rather than a mechanical problem localized to the site of a significant stenosis.

Significant stenosis does not equal unstable plaque

Not all plaques are equally likely to rupture. Stable plaques tend to be long-standing and calcified, with a thick fibrous cap. A stable plaque causing a 95% stenosis may cause symptoms with exertion, but it is unlikely to cause infarction.³ Conversely, rupture-prone plaques may cause little stenosis, but a large and dangerous plaque may be lurking beneath the thin fibrous cap.

Relying on angiography can be misleading. Treating all significant stenoses improves blood flow, but does not reduce the risk of infarction, because infarction most often occurs in areas where the lumen is not obstructed. A plaque causing only 30% stenosis can suddenly rupture, causing thrombosis and complete occlusion.

The current model explains why PCI is no better than optimal medical therapy (ie, risk factor modification, antiplatelet therapy with aspirin, and a statin). Diet, exercise, smoking cessation, and statins target inflammatory processes and lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, while aspirin prevents platelet aggregation, among other likely actions.

The model also explains why coronary artery bypass grafting reduces the risk of MI and death in patients with left main or 3-vessel disease. A patient with generalized coronary artery disease has multiple lesions, many of which do not cause significant stenoses. PCI corrects only a single stenosis, whereas coronary artery bypass grafting circumvents all the vulnerable plaques in a vessel.

THE LANDMARK COURAGE TRIAL

Published in 2007, the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial⁴ randomized more than 2,000 patients to receive either optimal medical therapy plus PCI or optimal medical therapy alone. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause and nonfatal MI. Patients were followed for at least 3 years, and some for as long as 7 years.

There was an initial small upward spike in the primary outcome in the PCI arm due to periprocedural events. By 5 years, the outcomes of the 2 arms converged and then stayed the same for up to 15 years.⁵ The authors concluded that PCI conferred no benefit over optimal medical therapy in the risk of death or MI.

Some doctors dismiss the study because of its stringent entry criteria—of 35,539 patients assessed, only 3,071 met the eligibility criteria. However, the entry criteria were meant to identify patients most likely to benefit from PCI. Many patients who undergo PCI today would not have qualified for the study because they lack objective evidence of ischemia.⁶ To enroll, patients needed a proximal stenosis of at least 70% and objective evidence of ischemia or a coronary stenosis of more than 80% and classic angina. Exclusion criteria disqualified few patients: Canadian Cardiovascular Society class IV angina (ie, angina evoked from minimal activity or at rest); a markedly positive stress test (substantial ST-segment depression or hypotension during stage I of the Bruce protocol); refractory heart failure or cardiogenic shock; an ejection fraction of less than 30%; revascularization within the past 6 months; and coronary anatomy unsuitable for PCI.

Although COURAGE was hailed as a landmark trial, it largely supported the results of previous studies. A meta-analysis of PCI vs optimal medical therapy published in 2005 found no significant differences in death, cardiac death, MI, or nonfatal MI.⁷ MI was actually slightly more common in the PCI group due to the increased risk of MI during the periprocedural period.

Nor has the evidence from COURAGE discouraged additional studies of the same topic. Despite consistent findings that fit with our understanding of coronary disease as inflammation, we continue to conduct studies aimed at addressing significant stenosis, as if that was the problem. Thus, there have been studies of angioplasty alone, followed by studies of bare-metal stents and then drug-eluting stents.

In 2009, Trikalinos et al published a review of 61 randomized controlled trials comprising more than 25,000 patients with stable coronary disease and comparing medical therapy and angioplasty in its various forms over the previous 20 years.⁸ In all direct and indirect comparisons of PCI and medical therapy, there were no improvements in rates of death or MI.

Even so, the studies continue. The most recent “improvement” was the addition of fractional flow reserve, which served as the inclusion criterion for the Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation 2 (FAME 2) trial.⁹ In that study, patients with at least 1 stenosis with a fractional flow reserve less than 0.80 were randomized to PCI plus medical therapy or to medical therapy alone. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, MI, and urgent revascularization. Unfortunately, the study was stopped early when the primary end point was met due to a reduction in the need for urgent revascularization. There was no reduction in the rate of MI (hazard ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.51–2.19).

The reduction in urgent revascularization has also been shown consistently in past studies, but this is the weakest outcome measure because it does not equate to a reduction in the rate of MI. There is no demonstrable harm to putting off stent placement, even in functionally significant arteries, and most patients do not require a stent, even in the future.

In summary, the primary benefit of getting a stent now is a reduced likelihood of needing one later.

PCI MAY IMPROVE ANGINA FASTER

Another important finding of the COURAGE trial was that PCI improved symptoms more than optimal medical therapy.¹⁰ This is not surprising, because angina is often a direct result of a significant stenosis. What was unexpected was that even after PCI, most patients were not symptom-free. At 1 month, significantly more PCI patients were angina-free (42%) than were medical patients (33%). This translates into an absolute risk reduction of 9% or a number needed to treat of 11 to prevent 1 case of angina.

Patients in both groups improved over time, and after 3 years, the difference between the 2 groups was no longer significant: 59% in the PCI group vs 56% in the medical therapy group were angina-free.

A more recent study has raised the possibility that the improvement in angina with PCI is primarily a placebo effect. Researchers in the United Kingdom randomized patients with stable angina and at least a 70% stenosis of one vessel to either PCI or sham PCI, in which they threaded the catheter but did not deploy the stent.¹¹ All patients received aggressive antianginal therapy before the procedure. At 6 weeks, there was improvement in angina in both groups, but no statistically significant difference between them in either exercise time or angina. Approximately half the patients in each group improved by at least 1 grade on the Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina classification, and more than 20% improved 2 grades.

This finding is not without precedent. Ligation of the internal mammary arteries, a popular treatment for angina in the 1950s, often provided dramatic relief of symptoms, until it was proven to be no better than a sham operation.^12,13 More recently, a placebo-controlled trial of percutaneous laser myocardial revascularization also failed to show improvement over a sham treatment, despite promising results from a phase 1 trial.¹⁴ Together, these studies emphasize the subjective nature of angina as an outcome and call into question the routine use of PCI to relieve it.

PCI ENTAILS RISK

PCI entails a small but not inconsequential risk. During the procedure, 2% of patients develop bleeding or blood vessel damage, and another 1% die or have an MI or a stroke. In the first year after stent placement, 3% of patients have a bleeding event from the antiplatelet therapy needed for the stent, and an additional 2% develop a clot in the stent that leads to MI.¹⁵

INFORMED CONSENT IS CRITICAL

As demonstrated above, for patients with stable angina, the only evidence-based benefit of PCI over optimal medical therapy is that symptoms may respond faster. At the same time, there are costs and risks associated with the procedure. Because symptoms are subjective, patients should play a key role in deciding whether PCI is appropriate for them.

The American Medical Association states that a physician providing any treatment or procedure should disclose and discuss with patients the risks and benefits. Unfortunately, a substantial body of evidence demonstrates that this is not occurring in practice.

Patients and cardiologists have conflicting beliefs about PCI

Studies over the past 20 years demonstrate that patients with chronic stable angina consistently overestimate the benefits of PCI, with 71% to 88% believing that it will reduce their chance of death.^16–19 Patients also understand that PCI can relieve their symptoms, though no study seems to have assessed the perceived magnitude of this benefit.

In contrast, when cardiologists were asked about the benefits their patients could expect from PCI, only 20% said that it would reduce mortality and 25% said it would prevent MI.¹⁸ These are still surprisingly high percentages, since the study was conducted after the COURAGE trial.

Nevertheless, these differences in perception show that cardiologists fail to successfully communicate the benefits of the procedure to their patients. Without complete information, patients cannot make informed decisions.

If PCI cannot improve hard outcomes like MI or death in stable coronary disease, why do cardiologists continue to perform it so frequently?

Soon after the COURAGE trial, Lin et al conducted focus groups with cardiologists to find out.²⁰ Some said that they doubted the clinical trial evidence, given the reduction in the cardiac mortality rate over the past 30 years. Others remarked that their overriding goal is to stamp out ischemia, and that once a lesion is found by catheterization, one must proceed with PCI. This has been termed the “oculostenotic reflex,” ie, the interventionist sees coronary artery disease and immediately places a stent.

Atreya et al found objective evidence of this practice.²¹ In a 2016 study of 207 patients with obstructive lesions amenable to PCI, the only factors associated with medical management were those that increased the risk of the procedure: age, chronic kidney disease, distal location of the lesion, and type C lesions (the most difficult ones to treat by PCI). More important, evidence of ischemia, presence of angina, and being on optimal medical therapy or maximal antianginal therapy were not associated with PCI.

When surveyed, cardiologists offered reasons similar to those identified by Lin et al, including a positive stress test (70%) and significant myocardium at risk (50%).¹⁸ Optimal medical therapy failure was cited less often (40%). Over 30% identified relief of chest pain for patients who were not prescribed optimal medical therapy. Another 30% said that patient anxiety contributed to their decision, but patients who reported anxiety were not more likely to get PCI than those who did not.

True informed consent rarely occurs

Surveys of patients and recordings of doctor visits suggest that doctors often discuss the risks of the procedure but rarely accurately describe the benefits or mention alternative treatments, including optimal medical therapy.

Fowler et al²² surveyed 472 Medicare patients who had undergone PCI in the past year about their consent discussion, particularly regarding alternative options. Only 6% of patients recalled discussing medication as a serious option with their doctor.

In 2 published studies,^23,24 we analyzed recorded conversations between doctors and patients in which angiography and PCI were discussed.

In a qualitative assessment of how cardiologists presented the rationale for PCI to patients,²³ we observed that cardiologists gave an accurate presentation of the benefits in only 5% of cases. In 13% of the conversations the benefits were explicitly overstated (eg, “If you don’t do it [angiogram/PCI], what could happen? Well, you could…have a heart attack involving that area which can lead to a sudden death”). In another 35% of cases, physicians offered an implicit overstatement of the benefit by saying they could “fix” the problem (eg, “So that’s where we start thinking, Well maybe we better try to fix that [blockage]”), without specifically stating that fixing the problem would offer any benefit. Patients were left to fill in the blanks. Conversations frequently focused on the rationale for performing PCI (eg, ischemia on a stress test) and a description of the procedure, rather than on the risks and benefits.

In a quantitative study of the same data set, we assessed how often physicians addressed the 7 elements of informed decision-making as defined by Braddock et al.²⁴

• Explaining the patient’s role in decision-making (ie, that the patient has a choice to make) was present in half of the conversations. Sometimes a doctor would simply say, “The next step is to perform catheterization.”
• Discussion of clinical issues (eg, having a blockage, stress test results) was performed in almost every case, demonstrating physicians’ comfort with that element.
• Discussing treatment alternatives occurred in only 1 in 4 conversations. This was more frequent than previously reported, and appeared most often when patients expressed hesitancy about proceeding to PCI.
• Discussing pros and cons of the alternatives was done in 42%.
• Uncertainty about the procedure (eg, that it might not relieve the angina) was expressed in only 10% of conversations.
• Assessment of patient understanding was done in 65% of cases. This included even minimal efforts (eg, “Do you have any questions?”). More advanced methods such as teach-back were never used.
• Exploration of patient preferences (eg, asking patients which treatment they prefer, or attempting to understand how angina affects a patient’s life) the final element, occurred in 73% of conversations.

Only 3% of the conversations contained all 7 elements. Even using a more relaxed definition of 3 critical elements (ie, discussing clinical issues, treatment alternatives, and pros and cons), only 13% of conversations included them all.

Discussion affects decisions

Informed decision-making is not only important because of its ethical implications. Offering patients more information was associated with their choosing not to have PCI. The probability of a patient undergoing PCI was negatively associated with 3 specific elements of informed decision-making. Patients were less likely to choose PCI if the patient’s role in decision-making was discussed (61% vs 86% chose PCI, P < .03); if alternatives were discussed (31% vs 89% chose PCI, P < .01); and if uncertainties were discussed (17% vs 80% chose PCI, P < .01).

There was also a linear relationship between the total number of elements discussed and the probability of choosing PCI: it ranged from 100% of patients choosing PCI when just 1 element was present to 3% of patients choosing PCI when all 7 elements were present. The relationship is not entirely causal, since doctors were more likely to talk about alternatives and risks if patients hesitated and raised questions. Cautious patients received more information.

From these observational studies, we know that physicians do not generally communicate the benefits of PCI, and patients make incorrect assumptions about the benefits they can expect. We know that those who receive more information are less likely to choose PCI, but what would happen if patients were randomly assigned to receive complete information?

We conducted an online survey of more than 1,000 participants over age 50 who had never undergone PCI, asking them to imagine visiting a cardiologist after having a positive stress test for stable chest pain.²⁵ Three intervention groups read different scenarios couched as information provided by their cardiologist:

• The “standard care” group received no specific information about the effects of PCI on the risk of myocardial infarction
• The “specific information” group was specifically told that PCI does not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction
• The “explanatory information” group was told how medications work and why PCI does not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction.

All 3 groups received information about the risks of PCI, its role in reducing angina, and the risks and benefits of optimal medical therapy.

After reading their scenario, all participants completed an identical questionnaire, which asked if they would opt for PCI, medical therapy, or both. Overall, 55% chose PCI, ranging from 70% in the standard care group to 46% in the group given explanatory information. Rates in the specific-information and explanatory-information groups were not statistically different from each other, but both were significantly different from that in the standard-care group. Interestingly, the more information patients were given about PCI, the more likely they were to choose optimal medical therapy.

After reading the scenario, participants were also asked if PCI would “prevent a heart attack.” Of those who received standard care, 71% endorsed that belief, which is remarkably similar to studies of real patients who have received standard care. In contrast, only 39% of those given specific information and 31% given explanatory information held that belief. Moreover, the belief that PCI prevented MI was the strongest predictor of choosing PCI (odds ratio 5.82, 95% confidence interval 4.13–8.26).²⁵

Interestingly, 52% of the standard care group falsely remembered that the doctor had told them that PCI would prevent an MI, even though the doctor said nothing about it one way or the other. It appears that participants were projecting their own beliefs onto the encounter. This highlights the importance of providing full information to patients who are considering this procedure.

TOWARD SHARED DECISION-MAKING

Shared decision-making is a process in which physicians enter into a partnership with a patient, offer information, elicit the patient’s preferences, and then come to a decision in concert with the patient.

Although many decisions can and should involve elements of shared decision-making, the decision to proceed with PCI for stable angina is particularly well-suited to shared decision-making. This is because the benefit of PCI depends on the value a patient attaches to being free of angina sooner. Since there is no difference in the risk of MI or death, the patient must decide if the risks of the procedure and the inconvenience of taking dual antiplatelet therapy are worth the benefit of improving symptoms faster. Presumably, patients who have more severe symptoms or experienced side effects from antianginal therapy would be more likely to choose PCI.

Despite having substantial experience educating patients, most physicians are unfamiliar with the process of shared decision-making. In particular, the process of eliciting preferences is often overlooked.

To address this issue, researchers at the Mayo Clinic developed a decision aid that compares PCI plus optimal medical therapy vs optimal medical therapy alone in an easily understandable information card.¹⁵ On one side, the 2 options are clearly stated, with the magnitude of symptom improvement over time graphically illustrated and the statement, “NO DIFFERENCE in heart attack or death,” prominently displayed. The back of the card discusses the risks of each option in easily understood tables.

The decision aid was compared with standard care in a randomized trial involving patients who were referred for catheterization and possible PCI.²⁶ The decision aid improved patients’ overall knowledge about PCI. In particular, 60% of those who used the decision aid knew that PCI did not prevent death or MI vs 40% of usual-care patients—results similar to those of the online experiment.

Interestingly, the decision about whether to undergo PCI did not differ significantly between the 2 groups, although there was a trend toward more patients in the decision-aid group choosing medical therapy alone (53%) vs the standard-care patients (39%).

To understand why the decision aid did not make more of a difference, the investigators performed qualitative interviews of the cardiologists in the study.²⁷ One theme was the timing of the intervention. Patients using the decision aid had already been referred for catheterization, and some felt the process should have occurred earlier. Engaging in shared decision-making with a general cardiologist before referral could help to improve the quality of patient decisions.

Cardiologists also noted the difficulty in changing their work flow to incorporate the decision aid. Although some embraced the idea of shared decision-making, others were concerned that many patients could not participate, and there was confusion about the difference between an educational tool, which could be used by a patient alone, and a decision aid, which is meant to generate discussion between the doctor and patient. Some expressed interest in using the tool in the future.

These findings serve to emphasize that providing information alone is not enough. If the physician does not “buy in” to the idea of shared decision-making, it will not occur.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Based on the pathophysiology of coronary artery disease and the results of multiple randomized controlled trials, it is evident that PCI does not prevent heart attacks in patients with chronic stable angina. However, most patients who undergo PCI are unaware of this and therefore do not truly give informed consent. In the absence of explicit information to the contrary, most patients with stable angina assume that PCI prevents MI and thus are biased toward choosing PCI.

Even minimal amounts of explicit information can partially overcome that bias and influence decision-making. In particular, explaining why PCI does not prevent MI was the most effective means of overcoming the bias.

To this end, shared decision aids may help physicians to engage in shared decision-making. Shared decision-making is most likely to occur if physicians are trained in the concept of shared decision-making, are committed to practicing it, and can fit it into their work flow. Ideally, this would occur in the office of a general cardiologist before referral for PCI.

For those practicing in accountable-care organizations, Medicare has recently introduced the shared decision-making model for 6 preference-sensitive conditions, including stable ischemic heart disease. Participants in this program will have the opportunity to receive payments for shared decision-making services and to share in any savings that result from reduced use of resources. Use of these tools holds the promise for providing more patient-centered care at lower cost.

Bacterial pneumonia remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, and is the 8^th leading cause of death with 55,227 deaths among adults annually.¹ In 2005, the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) collaborated to update guidelines for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), ventilator-associated pneumonia, and healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP).² This broad document outlines an evidence-based approach to diagnostic testing and antibiotic management based on the epidemiology and risk factors for these conditions. The guideline specifies the following criteria for HCAP: hospitalization in the past 90 days, residence in a skilled nursing facility (SNF), home infusion therapy, hemodialysis, home wound care, family members with multidrug resistant organisms (MDRO), and immunosuppressive diseases or medications, with the presumption that these patients are more likely to be harboring MDRO and should thus be treated empirically with broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy. Prior studies have shown that patients with HCAP have a more severe illness, are more likely to have MDRO, are more likely to be inadequately treated, and are at a higher risk for mortality than patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).^3,4

These guidelines are controversial, especially in regard to the recommendations to empirically treat broadly with 2 antibiotics targeting Pseudomonas species, whether patients with HCAP merit broader spectrum coverage than patients with CAP, and whether the criteria for defining HCAP are adequate to predict which patients are harboring MDRO. It has subsequently been proposed that HCAP is more related to CAP than to HAP, and a recent update to the guideline removed recommendations for treatment of HCAP and will be placing HCAP into the guidelines for CAP instead.⁵ We sought to investigate the degree of uptake of the ATS and IDSA guideline recommendations by physicians over time, and whether this led to a change in outcomes among patients who met the criteria for HCAP.

Setting and Patients

We identified patients discharged between July 1, 2007, and November 30, 2011, from 488 US hospitals that participated in the Premier database (Premier Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina), an inpatient database developed for measuring quality and healthcare utilization. The database is frequently used for healthcare research and has been described previously.⁶ Member hospitals are in all regions of the US and are generally reflective of US hospitals. This database contains multiple data elements, including sociodemographic information, International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision-Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis and procedure codes, hospital and physician information, source of admission, and discharge status. It also includes a date-stamped log of all billed items and services, including diagnostic tests, medications, and other treatments. Because the data do not contain identifiable information, the institutional review board at our medical center determined that this study did not constitute human subjects research.

We included all patients aged ≥18 years with a principal diagnosis of pneumonia or with a secondary diagnosis of pneumonia paired with a principal diagnosis of respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, respiratory arrest, sepsis, or influenza. Patients were excluded if they were transferred to or from another acute care institution, had a length of stay of 1 day or less, had cystic fibrosis, did not have a chest radiograph, or did not receive antibiotics within 48 hours of admission.

For each patient, we extracted age, gender, principal diagnosis, comorbidities, and the specialty of the attending physician. Comorbidities were identified from ICD-9-CM secondary diagnosis codes and Diagnosis Related Groups by using Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Comorbidity Software, version 3.1, based on the work of Elixhauser (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland).⁷ In order to ensure that patients had HCAP, we required the presence of ≥1 HCAP criteria, including hospitalization in the past 90 days, hemodialysis, admission from an SNF, or immune suppression (which was derived from either a secondary diagnosis for neutropenia, hematological malignancy, organ transplant, acquired immunodeficiency virus, or receiving immunosuppressant drugs or corticosteroids [equivalent to ≥20 mg/day of prednisone]).

Definitions of Guideline-Concordant and Discordant Antibiotic Therapy

The ATS and IDSA guidelines recommended the following antibiotic combinations for HCAP: an antipseudomonal cephalosporin or carbapenem or a beta-lactam/lactamase inhibitor, plus an antipseudomonal quinolone or aminoglycoside, plus an antibiotic with activity versus methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), such as vancomycin or linezolid. Based on these guidelines, we defined the receipt of fully guideline-concordant antibiotics as 2 recommended antibiotics for Pseudomonas species plus 1 for MRSA administered by the second day of admission. Partially guideline-concordant antibiotics were defined as 1 recommended antibiotic for Pseudomonas species plus 1 for MRSA by the second day of hospitalization. Guideline-discordant antibiotics were defined as all other combinations.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics on patient characteristics are presented as frequency, proportions for categorical factors, and median with interquartile range (IQR) for continuous variables for the full cohort and by treatment group, defined as fully or partially guideline-concordant antibiotic therapy or discordant therapy. Hospital rates of fully guideline-concordant treatment are presented overall and by hospital characteristics. The association of hospital characteristics with rates of fully guideline-concordant therapy were assessed by using 1-way analysis of variance tests.

To assess trends across hospitals for the association between the use of guideline-concordant therapy and mortality, progression to respiratory failure as measured by the late initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation (day 3 or later), and the length of stay among survivors, we divided the 4.5-year study period into 9 intervals of 6 months each; 292 hospitals that submitted data for all 9 time points were examined in this analysis. Based on the distribution of length of stay in the first time period, we created an indicator variable for extended length of stay with length of stay at or above the 75th percentile, defined as extended. For each hospital at each 6-month interval, we then computed risk-standardized guideline-concordant treatment (RS-treatment) rates and risk-standardized in-hospital outcome rates similar to methods used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for public reporting.⁸ For each hospital at each time interval, we estimated a predicted rate of guideline-concordant treatment as the sum of predicted probabilities of guideline-concordant treatment from patient factors and the random intercept for the hospital in which they were admitted. We then calculated the expected rate of guideline-concordant treatment as the sum of expected probabilities of treatment received from patient factors only. RS-treatment was then calculated as the ratio of predicted to expected rates multiplied by the overall unadjusted mean treatment rate from all patients.⁹ We repeated the same modeling strategy to calculate risk-standardized outcome (RS-outcome) rates for each hospital across all time points. All models were adjusted for patient demographics and comorbidities. Similar models using administrative data have moderate discrimination for mortality.¹⁰

We then fit mixed-effects linear models with random hospital intercept and slope across time for the RS-treatment and outcome rates, respectively. From these models, we estimated the mean slope for RS-treatment and for RS-outcome over time. In addition, we estimated a slope or trend over time for each hospital for treatment and for outcome and evaluated the correlation between the treatment and outcome trends.

All analyses were performed using the Statistical Analysis System version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) and STATA release 13 (StataCorp, LLC, College Station, Texas).

In this large, retrospective cohort study, we found that there was a substantial gap between the empiric antibiotics recommended by the ATS and IDSA guidelines and the empiric antibiotics that patients actually received. Over the study period, we saw an increased adherence to guidelines, in spite of growing evidence that HCAP risk factors do not adequately predict which patients are at risk for infection with an MDRO.¹¹ We used this change in antibiotic prescribing behavior over time to determine if there was a clinical impact on patient outcomes and found that at the hospital level, there were no improvements in mortality, excess length of stay, or progression to respiratory failure despite a doubling in guideline-concordant antibiotic use.

At least 2 other large studies have assessed the association between guideline-concordant therapy and outcomes in HCAP.^12,13 Both found that guideline-concordant therapy was associated with increased mortality, despite propensity matching. Both were conducted at the individual patient level by using administrative data, and results were likely affected by unmeasured clinical confounders, with sicker patients being more likely to receive guideline-concordant therapy. Our focus on the outcomes at the hospital level avoids this selection bias because the overall severity of illness of patients at any given hospital would not be expected to change over the study period, while physician uptake of antibiotic prescribing guidelines would be expected to increase over time. Determining the correlation between increases in guideline adherence and changes in patient outcome may offer a better assessment of the impact of guideline adherence. In this regard, our results are similar to those achieved by 1 quality improvement collaborative that was aimed at increasing guideline concordant therapy in ICUs. Despite an increase in guideline concordance from 33% to 47% of patients, they found no change in overall mortality.¹⁴

There were several limitations to our study. We did not have access to microbiologic data, so we were unable to determine which patients had MDRO infection or determine antibiotic-pathogen matching. However, the treating physicians in our study population presumably did not have access to this data at the time of treatment either because the time period we examined was within the first 48 hours of hospitalization, the interval during which cultures are incubating and the patients are being treated empirically. In addition, there may have been HCAP patients that we failed to identify, such as patients who were admitted in the past 90 days to a hospital that does not submit data to Premier. However, it is unlikely that prescribing for such patients should differ systematically from what we observed. While the database draws from 488 hospitals nationwide, it is possible that practices may be different at facilities that are not contained within the Premier database, such as Veterans Administration Hospitals. Similarly, we did not have readings for chest x-rays; hence, there could be some patients in the dataset who did not have pneumonia. However, we tried to overcome this by including only those patients with a principal diagnosis of pneumonia or sepsis with a secondary pneumonia diagnosis, a chest x-ray, and antibiotics administered within the first 48 hours of admission.

There are likely several reasons why so few HCAP patients in our study received guideline-concordant antibiotics. A lack of knowledge about the ATS and IDSA guidelines may have impacted the physicians in our study population. El-Solh et al.¹⁵ surveyed physicians about the ATS-IDSA guidelines 4 years after publication and found that only 45% were familiar with the document. We found that the rate of prescribing at least partially guideline-concordant antibiotics rose steadily over time, supporting the idea that the newness of the guidelines was 1 barrier. Additionally, prior studies have shown that many physicians may not agree with or choose to follow guidelines, with only 20% of physicians indicating that guidelines have a major impact on their clinical decision making,¹⁶ and the majority do not choose HCAP guideline-concordant antibiotics when tested.¹⁷ Alternatively, clinicians may not follow the guidelines because of a belief that the HCAP criteria do not adequately indicate patients who are at risk for MDRO. Previous studies have demonstrated the relative inability of HCAP risk factors to predict patients who harbor MDRO¹⁸ and suggest that better tools such as clinical scoring systems, which include not only the traditional HCAP risk factors but also prior exposure to antibiotics, prior culture data, and a cumulative assessment of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors, could more accurately predict MDRO and lead to a more judicious use of broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents.^19-25 Indeed, these collective findings have led the authors of the recently updated guidelines to remove HCAP as a clinical entity from the hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated pneumonia guidelines and place them instead in the upcoming updated guidelines on the management of CAP.⁵ Of these 3 explanations, the lack of familiarity fits best with our observation that guideline-concordant therapy increased steadily over time with no evidence of reaching a plateau. Ironically, as consensus was building that HCAP is a poor marker for MDROs, routine empiric treatment with vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam (“vanco and zosyn”) have become routine in many hospitals. Additional studies are needed to know if this trend has stabilized or reversed.

In conclusion, clinicians in our large, nationally representative sample treated the majority of HCAP patients as though they had CAP. Although there was an increase in the administration of guideline-concordant therapy over time, this increase was not associated with improved outcomes. This study supports the growing consensus that HCAP criteria do not accurately predict which patients benefit from broad-spectrum antibiotics for pneumonia, and most patients fare well with antibiotics targeting common community-acquired organisms.

Disclosure

 This work was supported by grant # R01HS018723 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Lagu is also supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number K01HL114745. Dr. Lindenauer is supported by grant K24HL132008 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The funding agency had no role in the data acquisition, analysis, or manuscript preparation for this study. Drs. Haessler and Rothberg had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs. Haessler, Lagu, Lindenauer, Skiest, Zilberberg, Higgins, and Rothberg conceived of the study and analyzed and interpreted the data. Dr. Lindenauer acquired the data. Dr. Pekow and Ms. Priya carried out the statistical analyses. Dr. Haessler drafted the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript for accuracy and integrity. All authors certify no potential conflicts of interest. Preliminary results from this study were presented in oral and poster format at IDWeek in 2012 and 2013.

Bacterial pneumonia remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, and is the 8^th leading cause of death with 55,227 deaths among adults annually.¹ In 2005, the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) collaborated to update guidelines for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), ventilator-associated pneumonia, and healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP).² This broad document outlines an evidence-based approach to diagnostic testing and antibiotic management based on the epidemiology and risk factors for these conditions. The guideline specifies the following criteria for HCAP: hospitalization in the past 90 days, residence in a skilled nursing facility (SNF), home infusion therapy, hemodialysis, home wound care, family members with multidrug resistant organisms (MDRO), and immunosuppressive diseases or medications, with the presumption that these patients are more likely to be harboring MDRO and should thus be treated empirically with broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy. Prior studies have shown that patients with HCAP have a more severe illness, are more likely to have MDRO, are more likely to be inadequately treated, and are at a higher risk for mortality than patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).^3,4

These guidelines are controversial, especially in regard to the recommendations to empirically treat broadly with 2 antibiotics targeting Pseudomonas species, whether patients with HCAP merit broader spectrum coverage than patients with CAP, and whether the criteria for defining HCAP are adequate to predict which patients are harboring MDRO. It has subsequently been proposed that HCAP is more related to CAP than to HAP, and a recent update to the guideline removed recommendations for treatment of HCAP and will be placing HCAP into the guidelines for CAP instead.⁵ We sought to investigate the degree of uptake of the ATS and IDSA guideline recommendations by physicians over time, and whether this led to a change in outcomes among patients who met the criteria for HCAP.

Setting and Patients

We identified patients discharged between July 1, 2007, and November 30, 2011, from 488 US hospitals that participated in the Premier database (Premier Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina), an inpatient database developed for measuring quality and healthcare utilization. The database is frequently used for healthcare research and has been described previously.⁶ Member hospitals are in all regions of the US and are generally reflective of US hospitals. This database contains multiple data elements, including sociodemographic information, International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision-Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis and procedure codes, hospital and physician information, source of admission, and discharge status. It also includes a date-stamped log of all billed items and services, including diagnostic tests, medications, and other treatments. Because the data do not contain identifiable information, the institutional review board at our medical center determined that this study did not constitute human subjects research.

We included all patients aged ≥18 years with a principal diagnosis of pneumonia or with a secondary diagnosis of pneumonia paired with a principal diagnosis of respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, respiratory arrest, sepsis, or influenza. Patients were excluded if they were transferred to or from another acute care institution, had a length of stay of 1 day or less, had cystic fibrosis, did not have a chest radiograph, or did not receive antibiotics within 48 hours of admission.

For each patient, we extracted age, gender, principal diagnosis, comorbidities, and the specialty of the attending physician. Comorbidities were identified from ICD-9-CM secondary diagnosis codes and Diagnosis Related Groups by using Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Comorbidity Software, version 3.1, based on the work of Elixhauser (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland).⁷ In order to ensure that patients had HCAP, we required the presence of ≥1 HCAP criteria, including hospitalization in the past 90 days, hemodialysis, admission from an SNF, or immune suppression (which was derived from either a secondary diagnosis for neutropenia, hematological malignancy, organ transplant, acquired immunodeficiency virus, or receiving immunosuppressant drugs or corticosteroids [equivalent to ≥20 mg/day of prednisone]).

Definitions of Guideline-Concordant and Discordant Antibiotic Therapy

The ATS and IDSA guidelines recommended the following antibiotic combinations for HCAP: an antipseudomonal cephalosporin or carbapenem or a beta-lactam/lactamase inhibitor, plus an antipseudomonal quinolone or aminoglycoside, plus an antibiotic with activity versus methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), such as vancomycin or linezolid. Based on these guidelines, we defined the receipt of fully guideline-concordant antibiotics as 2 recommended antibiotics for Pseudomonas species plus 1 for MRSA administered by the second day of admission. Partially guideline-concordant antibiotics were defined as 1 recommended antibiotic for Pseudomonas species plus 1 for MRSA by the second day of hospitalization. Guideline-discordant antibiotics were defined as all other combinations.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics on patient characteristics are presented as frequency, proportions for categorical factors, and median with interquartile range (IQR) for continuous variables for the full cohort and by treatment group, defined as fully or partially guideline-concordant antibiotic therapy or discordant therapy. Hospital rates of fully guideline-concordant treatment are presented overall and by hospital characteristics. The association of hospital characteristics with rates of fully guideline-concordant therapy were assessed by using 1-way analysis of variance tests.

To assess trends across hospitals for the association between the use of guideline-concordant therapy and mortality, progression to respiratory failure as measured by the late initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation (day 3 or later), and the length of stay among survivors, we divided the 4.5-year study period into 9 intervals of 6 months each; 292 hospitals that submitted data for all 9 time points were examined in this analysis. Based on the distribution of length of stay in the first time period, we created an indicator variable for extended length of stay with length of stay at or above the 75th percentile, defined as extended. For each hospital at each 6-month interval, we then computed risk-standardized guideline-concordant treatment (RS-treatment) rates and risk-standardized in-hospital outcome rates similar to methods used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for public reporting.⁸ For each hospital at each time interval, we estimated a predicted rate of guideline-concordant treatment as the sum of predicted probabilities of guideline-concordant treatment from patient factors and the random intercept for the hospital in which they were admitted. We then calculated the expected rate of guideline-concordant treatment as the sum of expected probabilities of treatment received from patient factors only. RS-treatment was then calculated as the ratio of predicted to expected rates multiplied by the overall unadjusted mean treatment rate from all patients.⁹ We repeated the same modeling strategy to calculate risk-standardized outcome (RS-outcome) rates for each hospital across all time points. All models were adjusted for patient demographics and comorbidities. Similar models using administrative data have moderate discrimination for mortality.¹⁰

We then fit mixed-effects linear models with random hospital intercept and slope across time for the RS-treatment and outcome rates, respectively. From these models, we estimated the mean slope for RS-treatment and for RS-outcome over time. In addition, we estimated a slope or trend over time for each hospital for treatment and for outcome and evaluated the correlation between the treatment and outcome trends.

All analyses were performed using the Statistical Analysis System version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) and STATA release 13 (StataCorp, LLC, College Station, Texas).

In this large, retrospective cohort study, we found that there was a substantial gap between the empiric antibiotics recommended by the ATS and IDSA guidelines and the empiric antibiotics that patients actually received. Over the study period, we saw an increased adherence to guidelines, in spite of growing evidence that HCAP risk factors do not adequately predict which patients are at risk for infection with an MDRO.¹¹ We used this change in antibiotic prescribing behavior over time to determine if there was a clinical impact on patient outcomes and found that at the hospital level, there were no improvements in mortality, excess length of stay, or progression to respiratory failure despite a doubling in guideline-concordant antibiotic use.

At least 2 other large studies have assessed the association between guideline-concordant therapy and outcomes in HCAP.^12,13 Both found that guideline-concordant therapy was associated with increased mortality, despite propensity matching. Both were conducted at the individual patient level by using administrative data, and results were likely affected by unmeasured clinical confounders, with sicker patients being more likely to receive guideline-concordant therapy. Our focus on the outcomes at the hospital level avoids this selection bias because the overall severity of illness of patients at any given hospital would not be expected to change over the study period, while physician uptake of antibiotic prescribing guidelines would be expected to increase over time. Determining the correlation between increases in guideline adherence and changes in patient outcome may offer a better assessment of the impact of guideline adherence. In this regard, our results are similar to those achieved by 1 quality improvement collaborative that was aimed at increasing guideline concordant therapy in ICUs. Despite an increase in guideline concordance from 33% to 47% of patients, they found no change in overall mortality.¹⁴

There were several limitations to our study. We did not have access to microbiologic data, so we were unable to determine which patients had MDRO infection or determine antibiotic-pathogen matching. However, the treating physicians in our study population presumably did not have access to this data at the time of treatment either because the time period we examined was within the first 48 hours of hospitalization, the interval during which cultures are incubating and the patients are being treated empirically. In addition, there may have been HCAP patients that we failed to identify, such as patients who were admitted in the past 90 days to a hospital that does not submit data to Premier. However, it is unlikely that prescribing for such patients should differ systematically from what we observed. While the database draws from 488 hospitals nationwide, it is possible that practices may be different at facilities that are not contained within the Premier database, such as Veterans Administration Hospitals. Similarly, we did not have readings for chest x-rays; hence, there could be some patients in the dataset who did not have pneumonia. However, we tried to overcome this by including only those patients with a principal diagnosis of pneumonia or sepsis with a secondary pneumonia diagnosis, a chest x-ray, and antibiotics administered within the first 48 hours of admission.

There are likely several reasons why so few HCAP patients in our study received guideline-concordant antibiotics. A lack of knowledge about the ATS and IDSA guidelines may have impacted the physicians in our study population. El-Solh et al.¹⁵ surveyed physicians about the ATS-IDSA guidelines 4 years after publication and found that only 45% were familiar with the document. We found that the rate of prescribing at least partially guideline-concordant antibiotics rose steadily over time, supporting the idea that the newness of the guidelines was 1 barrier. Additionally, prior studies have shown that many physicians may not agree with or choose to follow guidelines, with only 20% of physicians indicating that guidelines have a major impact on their clinical decision making,¹⁶ and the majority do not choose HCAP guideline-concordant antibiotics when tested.¹⁷ Alternatively, clinicians may not follow the guidelines because of a belief that the HCAP criteria do not adequately indicate patients who are at risk for MDRO. Previous studies have demonstrated the relative inability of HCAP risk factors to predict patients who harbor MDRO¹⁸ and suggest that better tools such as clinical scoring systems, which include not only the traditional HCAP risk factors but also prior exposure to antibiotics, prior culture data, and a cumulative assessment of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors, could more accurately predict MDRO and lead to a more judicious use of broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents.^19-25 Indeed, these collective findings have led the authors of the recently updated guidelines to remove HCAP as a clinical entity from the hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated pneumonia guidelines and place them instead in the upcoming updated guidelines on the management of CAP.⁵ Of these 3 explanations, the lack of familiarity fits best with our observation that guideline-concordant therapy increased steadily over time with no evidence of reaching a plateau. Ironically, as consensus was building that HCAP is a poor marker for MDROs, routine empiric treatment with vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam (“vanco and zosyn”) have become routine in many hospitals. Additional studies are needed to know if this trend has stabilized or reversed.

In conclusion, clinicians in our large, nationally representative sample treated the majority of HCAP patients as though they had CAP. Although there was an increase in the administration of guideline-concordant therapy over time, this increase was not associated with improved outcomes. This study supports the growing consensus that HCAP criteria do not accurately predict which patients benefit from broad-spectrum antibiotics for pneumonia, and most patients fare well with antibiotics targeting common community-acquired organisms.

Disclosure

 This work was supported by grant # R01HS018723 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Lagu is also supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number K01HL114745. Dr. Lindenauer is supported by grant K24HL132008 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The funding agency had no role in the data acquisition, analysis, or manuscript preparation for this study. Drs. Haessler and Rothberg had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs. Haessler, Lagu, Lindenauer, Skiest, Zilberberg, Higgins, and Rothberg conceived of the study and analyzed and interpreted the data. Dr. Lindenauer acquired the data. Dr. Pekow and Ms. Priya carried out the statistical analyses. Dr. Haessler drafted the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript for accuracy and integrity. All authors certify no potential conflicts of interest. Preliminary results from this study were presented in oral and poster format at IDWeek in 2012 and 2013.

Bacterial pneumonia remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, and is the 8^th leading cause of death with 55,227 deaths among adults annually.¹ In 2005, the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) collaborated to update guidelines for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), ventilator-associated pneumonia, and healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP).² This broad document outlines an evidence-based approach to diagnostic testing and antibiotic management based on the epidemiology and risk factors for these conditions. The guideline specifies the following criteria for HCAP: hospitalization in the past 90 days, residence in a skilled nursing facility (SNF), home infusion therapy, hemodialysis, home wound care, family members with multidrug resistant organisms (MDRO), and immunosuppressive diseases or medications, with the presumption that these patients are more likely to be harboring MDRO and should thus be treated empirically with broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy. Prior studies have shown that patients with HCAP have a more severe illness, are more likely to have MDRO, are more likely to be inadequately treated, and are at a higher risk for mortality than patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).^3,4

These guidelines are controversial, especially in regard to the recommendations to empirically treat broadly with 2 antibiotics targeting Pseudomonas species, whether patients with HCAP merit broader spectrum coverage than patients with CAP, and whether the criteria for defining HCAP are adequate to predict which patients are harboring MDRO. It has subsequently been proposed that HCAP is more related to CAP than to HAP, and a recent update to the guideline removed recommendations for treatment of HCAP and will be placing HCAP into the guidelines for CAP instead.⁵ We sought to investigate the degree of uptake of the ATS and IDSA guideline recommendations by physicians over time, and whether this led to a change in outcomes among patients who met the criteria for HCAP.

Setting and Patients

We identified patients discharged between July 1, 2007, and November 30, 2011, from 488 US hospitals that participated in the Premier database (Premier Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina), an inpatient database developed for measuring quality and healthcare utilization. The database is frequently used for healthcare research and has been described previously.⁶ Member hospitals are in all regions of the US and are generally reflective of US hospitals. This database contains multiple data elements, including sociodemographic information, International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision-Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis and procedure codes, hospital and physician information, source of admission, and discharge status. It also includes a date-stamped log of all billed items and services, including diagnostic tests, medications, and other treatments. Because the data do not contain identifiable information, the institutional review board at our medical center determined that this study did not constitute human subjects research.

We included all patients aged ≥18 years with a principal diagnosis of pneumonia or with a secondary diagnosis of pneumonia paired with a principal diagnosis of respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, respiratory arrest, sepsis, or influenza. Patients were excluded if they were transferred to or from another acute care institution, had a length of stay of 1 day or less, had cystic fibrosis, did not have a chest radiograph, or did not receive antibiotics within 48 hours of admission.

For each patient, we extracted age, gender, principal diagnosis, comorbidities, and the specialty of the attending physician. Comorbidities were identified from ICD-9-CM secondary diagnosis codes and Diagnosis Related Groups by using Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Comorbidity Software, version 3.1, based on the work of Elixhauser (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland).⁷ In order to ensure that patients had HCAP, we required the presence of ≥1 HCAP criteria, including hospitalization in the past 90 days, hemodialysis, admission from an SNF, or immune suppression (which was derived from either a secondary diagnosis for neutropenia, hematological malignancy, organ transplant, acquired immunodeficiency virus, or receiving immunosuppressant drugs or corticosteroids [equivalent to ≥20 mg/day of prednisone]).

Definitions of Guideline-Concordant and Discordant Antibiotic Therapy

The ATS and IDSA guidelines recommended the following antibiotic combinations for HCAP: an antipseudomonal cephalosporin or carbapenem or a beta-lactam/lactamase inhibitor, plus an antipseudomonal quinolone or aminoglycoside, plus an antibiotic with activity versus methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), such as vancomycin or linezolid. Based on these guidelines, we defined the receipt of fully guideline-concordant antibiotics as 2 recommended antibiotics for Pseudomonas species plus 1 for MRSA administered by the second day of admission. Partially guideline-concordant antibiotics were defined as 1 recommended antibiotic for Pseudomonas species plus 1 for MRSA by the second day of hospitalization. Guideline-discordant antibiotics were defined as all other combinations.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics on patient characteristics are presented as frequency, proportions for categorical factors, and median with interquartile range (IQR) for continuous variables for the full cohort and by treatment group, defined as fully or partially guideline-concordant antibiotic therapy or discordant therapy. Hospital rates of fully guideline-concordant treatment are presented overall and by hospital characteristics. The association of hospital characteristics with rates of fully guideline-concordant therapy were assessed by using 1-way analysis of variance tests.

To assess trends across hospitals for the association between the use of guideline-concordant therapy and mortality, progression to respiratory failure as measured by the late initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation (day 3 or later), and the length of stay among survivors, we divided the 4.5-year study period into 9 intervals of 6 months each; 292 hospitals that submitted data for all 9 time points were examined in this analysis. Based on the distribution of length of stay in the first time period, we created an indicator variable for extended length of stay with length of stay at or above the 75th percentile, defined as extended. For each hospital at each 6-month interval, we then computed risk-standardized guideline-concordant treatment (RS-treatment) rates and risk-standardized in-hospital outcome rates similar to methods used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for public reporting.⁸ For each hospital at each time interval, we estimated a predicted rate of guideline-concordant treatment as the sum of predicted probabilities of guideline-concordant treatment from patient factors and the random intercept for the hospital in which they were admitted. We then calculated the expected rate of guideline-concordant treatment as the sum of expected probabilities of treatment received from patient factors only. RS-treatment was then calculated as the ratio of predicted to expected rates multiplied by the overall unadjusted mean treatment rate from all patients.⁹ We repeated the same modeling strategy to calculate risk-standardized outcome (RS-outcome) rates for each hospital across all time points. All models were adjusted for patient demographics and comorbidities. Similar models using administrative data have moderate discrimination for mortality.¹⁰

We then fit mixed-effects linear models with random hospital intercept and slope across time for the RS-treatment and outcome rates, respectively. From these models, we estimated the mean slope for RS-treatment and for RS-outcome over time. In addition, we estimated a slope or trend over time for each hospital for treatment and for outcome and evaluated the correlation between the treatment and outcome trends.

All analyses were performed using the Statistical Analysis System version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) and STATA release 13 (StataCorp, LLC, College Station, Texas).

In this large, retrospective cohort study, we found that there was a substantial gap between the empiric antibiotics recommended by the ATS and IDSA guidelines and the empiric antibiotics that patients actually received. Over the study period, we saw an increased adherence to guidelines, in spite of growing evidence that HCAP risk factors do not adequately predict which patients are at risk for infection with an MDRO.¹¹ We used this change in antibiotic prescribing behavior over time to determine if there was a clinical impact on patient outcomes and found that at the hospital level, there were no improvements in mortality, excess length of stay, or progression to respiratory failure despite a doubling in guideline-concordant antibiotic use.

At least 2 other large studies have assessed the association between guideline-concordant therapy and outcomes in HCAP.^12,13 Both found that guideline-concordant therapy was associated with increased mortality, despite propensity matching. Both were conducted at the individual patient level by using administrative data, and results were likely affected by unmeasured clinical confounders, with sicker patients being more likely to receive guideline-concordant therapy. Our focus on the outcomes at the hospital level avoids this selection bias because the overall severity of illness of patients at any given hospital would not be expected to change over the study period, while physician uptake of antibiotic prescribing guidelines would be expected to increase over time. Determining the correlation between increases in guideline adherence and changes in patient outcome may offer a better assessment of the impact of guideline adherence. In this regard, our results are similar to those achieved by 1 quality improvement collaborative that was aimed at increasing guideline concordant therapy in ICUs. Despite an increase in guideline concordance from 33% to 47% of patients, they found no change in overall mortality.¹⁴

There were several limitations to our study. We did not have access to microbiologic data, so we were unable to determine which patients had MDRO infection or determine antibiotic-pathogen matching. However, the treating physicians in our study population presumably did not have access to this data at the time of treatment either because the time period we examined was within the first 48 hours of hospitalization, the interval during which cultures are incubating and the patients are being treated empirically. In addition, there may have been HCAP patients that we failed to identify, such as patients who were admitted in the past 90 days to a hospital that does not submit data to Premier. However, it is unlikely that prescribing for such patients should differ systematically from what we observed. While the database draws from 488 hospitals nationwide, it is possible that practices may be different at facilities that are not contained within the Premier database, such as Veterans Administration Hospitals. Similarly, we did not have readings for chest x-rays; hence, there could be some patients in the dataset who did not have pneumonia. However, we tried to overcome this by including only those patients with a principal diagnosis of pneumonia or sepsis with a secondary pneumonia diagnosis, a chest x-ray, and antibiotics administered within the first 48 hours of admission.

There are likely several reasons why so few HCAP patients in our study received guideline-concordant antibiotics. A lack of knowledge about the ATS and IDSA guidelines may have impacted the physicians in our study population. El-Solh et al.¹⁵ surveyed physicians about the ATS-IDSA guidelines 4 years after publication and found that only 45% were familiar with the document. We found that the rate of prescribing at least partially guideline-concordant antibiotics rose steadily over time, supporting the idea that the newness of the guidelines was 1 barrier. Additionally, prior studies have shown that many physicians may not agree with or choose to follow guidelines, with only 20% of physicians indicating that guidelines have a major impact on their clinical decision making,¹⁶ and the majority do not choose HCAP guideline-concordant antibiotics when tested.¹⁷ Alternatively, clinicians may not follow the guidelines because of a belief that the HCAP criteria do not adequately indicate patients who are at risk for MDRO. Previous studies have demonstrated the relative inability of HCAP risk factors to predict patients who harbor MDRO¹⁸ and suggest that better tools such as clinical scoring systems, which include not only the traditional HCAP risk factors but also prior exposure to antibiotics, prior culture data, and a cumulative assessment of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors, could more accurately predict MDRO and lead to a more judicious use of broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents.^19-25 Indeed, these collective findings have led the authors of the recently updated guidelines to remove HCAP as a clinical entity from the hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated pneumonia guidelines and place them instead in the upcoming updated guidelines on the management of CAP.⁵ Of these 3 explanations, the lack of familiarity fits best with our observation that guideline-concordant therapy increased steadily over time with no evidence of reaching a plateau. Ironically, as consensus was building that HCAP is a poor marker for MDROs, routine empiric treatment with vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam (“vanco and zosyn”) have become routine in many hospitals. Additional studies are needed to know if this trend has stabilized or reversed.

In conclusion, clinicians in our large, nationally representative sample treated the majority of HCAP patients as though they had CAP. Although there was an increase in the administration of guideline-concordant therapy over time, this increase was not associated with improved outcomes. This study supports the growing consensus that HCAP criteria do not accurately predict which patients benefit from broad-spectrum antibiotics for pneumonia, and most patients fare well with antibiotics targeting common community-acquired organisms.

Disclosure

 This work was supported by grant # R01HS018723 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Lagu is also supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number K01HL114745. Dr. Lindenauer is supported by grant K24HL132008 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The funding agency had no role in the data acquisition, analysis, or manuscript preparation for this study. Drs. Haessler and Rothberg had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs. Haessler, Lagu, Lindenauer, Skiest, Zilberberg, Higgins, and Rothberg conceived of the study and analyzed and interpreted the data. Dr. Lindenauer acquired the data. Dr. Pekow and Ms. Priya carried out the statistical analyses. Dr. Haessler drafted the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript for accuracy and integrity. All authors certify no potential conflicts of interest. Preliminary results from this study were presented in oral and poster format at IDWeek in 2012 and 2013.

Whether robbing banks or reducing healthcare spending, it makes sense to go where the money is. In the case of healthcare, 32% of spending goes to inpatient care, so hospitals represent a logical target for cost-reduction efforts. Because most hospital costs are fixed, there are basically 2 approaches to reducing spending—shorten length of stay or keep patients out of the hospital altogether. The government has tried both, using the power of financial incentives to spur adoption.

Faced with soaring hospital costs in the 1980s, Medicare introduced its prospective payment system, offering hospitals a fixed payment for each specific Diagnosis-Related Group. Hospitals responded by discharging patients sooner, with a resultant rise in admissions to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and rapid growth of the home care industry. Length of stay fell dramatically, dropping 9% in 1984 alone.¹ It continued to decline through the 1990s, falling by almost 20% between 1993 and 2000. In the following decade, despite the rise of hospital medicine, the rate of decrease slowed to 0.2% per year.²

Attention then turned to readmissions. In 2008, the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee proposed that hospitals with high risk-adjusted readmission rates receive lower payments, arguing that readmissions accounted for $15 billion in Medicare spending and that many were preventable. Thus the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program was born, introducing readmission penalties in 2012.

Numerous interventions emerged from government and nongovernment parties to reduce readmissions. Many used intensive transitional care programs focusing on early follow-up or medication safety, and some even went as far as providing transitional housing.³ Shortly after passage of the Affordable Care Act, readmission rates fell rapidly. Within a few years, however, the rate of decline slowed dramatically and may have reached a plateau.⁴ Many have argued that only a small proportion of readmissions are preventable and that there are more direct ways to promote improved discharge planning without diverting resources from other areas.⁵ It seems that readmissions may not be feasibly reduced much further.

With the advent of accountable care organizations, health systems are now turning their focus to the small population of patients who consume a disproportionate share of healthcare dollars. Because the top 1% of patients—so-called super-utilizers—account for 21% of spending, efforts to reduce their utilization could produce outsized returns.⁶ Initial anecdotal reports described patients with complex physical, behavior, and social needs receiving fragmented care resulting in myriad expensive admissions. The response comprised teams of social workers and community health workers coupled with robust primary care, formulating individualized solutions. However, data supporting the effectiveness of this common-sense approach are lacking. In addition, our understanding of high-cost patients is evolving. For one thing, being a super-utilizer is often temporary, as just over one-quarter are still in that category a year later.⁷ Moreover, not all high-cost patients are frequently admitted.⁸

In this issue of The Journal of Hospital Medicine, Wick et al.⁹ provide additional insight into high utilizers of hospital services. The authors compare definitions of high utilizers based on cost, number of admissions, or cumulative length of stay over one year. Only 10 percent of high utilizers met all 3 definitions. The overlap between high utilizers by cost and length of stay was twice the overlap between high utilizers by number of admissions and either group. This finding is not surprising because hospitals have high fixed costs, so total cost tends to mirror length of stay.

The study was performed in Canada, and the overlap among these groups may be different in the US. The Canadian patients were hospitalized less frequently than their American counterparts, perhaps reflecting better access to primary care in the Canadian system. Regardless, Wick et al.⁹ add to the growing literature suggesting that the terms “high utilization” and “high cost” do not always describe the same population. This finding is important because strategies aimed at patients who are frequently admitted may not be effective for those who generate the highest costs. In trying to reduce overall costs, it may be time to revisit length of stay.

Given the long history of prospective payment in the US and the stagnation in length of stay over the past decade, it is reasonable to wonder whether further reductions are possible. In the study by Wick et al.,⁹ patients with longer lengths of stay were discharged to long-term care facilities. This observation is consistent with others’ reports. Studies of delays in care show that at least 10% of all hospital days can be attributed to delays in discharge, especially to SNFs. In the most recent study, 11% of hospital days were deemed unnecessary by hospitalists, with one-third of those delays due to lack of availability at an extended care facility.¹⁰ Six years earlier, Carey et al. found that 13.5% of inpatient days were unnecessary, with more than 60% of delays attributable to waiting for discharge to a SNF.¹¹

How, then, might we curtail unnecessary waiting, and whose job is it to solve the problem? The prospective payment system should reward hospitals for eliminating waiting—particularly those hospitals operating at capacity, for which the opportunity costs of occupied beds are most acute. Hospitalists, per se, have no incentive to discharge patients who are waiting; these patients are easy to round on, rarely have emergencies, and generate daily bills. Even when hospitalists are employed by the hospital and incentives for both are aligned, hospitalists may still be powerless to discharge waiting patients, summon busy consultants, or create extra slots in the endoscopy suite.

The move to value at the system level may offer hope. As health systems become responsible for the total cost of care, their focus must shift from the individual areas where care is provided to the transitions of care between treatment areas. It is in these transitions that US healthcare has failed most spectacularly, and consequently, it is where the greatest opportunity lies.

To date, most discharge interventions have focused on communication, with a goal of improving patient safety and, to a lesser extent, preventing readmissions. Partnering with SNFs can reduce the rate of readmissions,¹² but for the most part, the incentives for hospitals and post-acute care facilities remain misaligned. Because post-acute care facilities are paid per diem, they have little incentive to reduce patients’ stays or to admit new patients, who are more expensive to care for than existing ones. Physicians round on SNF patients infrequently and have no incentive to discharge patients, exacerbating the problem. Because post-acute care represents a growing proportion of costs for both medical and surgical patients, health systems will need to either have their own facilities or enter into contracts that align the incentives.

What can hospitalists do? As the predominant coordinators of hospitalized patients’ care both for medical and surgical teams, hospitalists meaningfully impact readmissions and lengths of stay through the care they provide.¹³ More important, as their roles in optimizing hospital throughput¹⁴ continue to expand, hospitalists are perhaps best positioned to observe a diverse range of inefficiencies and inadequacies in inpatient practice and translate those observations into new systems of care. Through thoughtful participation in hospital operations, administration, and health services research, hospitalists hold the key to improving the value of care we provide.

Disclosure 

Nothing to report.

Whether robbing banks or reducing healthcare spending, it makes sense to go where the money is. In the case of healthcare, 32% of spending goes to inpatient care, so hospitals represent a logical target for cost-reduction efforts. Because most hospital costs are fixed, there are basically 2 approaches to reducing spending—shorten length of stay or keep patients out of the hospital altogether. The government has tried both, using the power of financial incentives to spur adoption.

Faced with soaring hospital costs in the 1980s, Medicare introduced its prospective payment system, offering hospitals a fixed payment for each specific Diagnosis-Related Group. Hospitals responded by discharging patients sooner, with a resultant rise in admissions to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and rapid growth of the home care industry. Length of stay fell dramatically, dropping 9% in 1984 alone.¹ It continued to decline through the 1990s, falling by almost 20% between 1993 and 2000. In the following decade, despite the rise of hospital medicine, the rate of decrease slowed to 0.2% per year.²

Attention then turned to readmissions. In 2008, the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee proposed that hospitals with high risk-adjusted readmission rates receive lower payments, arguing that readmissions accounted for $15 billion in Medicare spending and that many were preventable. Thus the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program was born, introducing readmission penalties in 2012.

Numerous interventions emerged from government and nongovernment parties to reduce readmissions. Many used intensive transitional care programs focusing on early follow-up or medication safety, and some even went as far as providing transitional housing.³ Shortly after passage of the Affordable Care Act, readmission rates fell rapidly. Within a few years, however, the rate of decline slowed dramatically and may have reached a plateau.⁴ Many have argued that only a small proportion of readmissions are preventable and that there are more direct ways to promote improved discharge planning without diverting resources from other areas.⁵ It seems that readmissions may not be feasibly reduced much further.

With the advent of accountable care organizations, health systems are now turning their focus to the small population of patients who consume a disproportionate share of healthcare dollars. Because the top 1% of patients—so-called super-utilizers—account for 21% of spending, efforts to reduce their utilization could produce outsized returns.⁶ Initial anecdotal reports described patients with complex physical, behavior, and social needs receiving fragmented care resulting in myriad expensive admissions. The response comprised teams of social workers and community health workers coupled with robust primary care, formulating individualized solutions. However, data supporting the effectiveness of this common-sense approach are lacking. In addition, our understanding of high-cost patients is evolving. For one thing, being a super-utilizer is often temporary, as just over one-quarter are still in that category a year later.⁷ Moreover, not all high-cost patients are frequently admitted.⁸

In this issue of The Journal of Hospital Medicine, Wick et al.⁹ provide additional insight into high utilizers of hospital services. The authors compare definitions of high utilizers based on cost, number of admissions, or cumulative length of stay over one year. Only 10 percent of high utilizers met all 3 definitions. The overlap between high utilizers by cost and length of stay was twice the overlap between high utilizers by number of admissions and either group. This finding is not surprising because hospitals have high fixed costs, so total cost tends to mirror length of stay.

The study was performed in Canada, and the overlap among these groups may be different in the US. The Canadian patients were hospitalized less frequently than their American counterparts, perhaps reflecting better access to primary care in the Canadian system. Regardless, Wick et al.⁹ add to the growing literature suggesting that the terms “high utilization” and “high cost” do not always describe the same population. This finding is important because strategies aimed at patients who are frequently admitted may not be effective for those who generate the highest costs. In trying to reduce overall costs, it may be time to revisit length of stay.

Given the long history of prospective payment in the US and the stagnation in length of stay over the past decade, it is reasonable to wonder whether further reductions are possible. In the study by Wick et al.,⁹ patients with longer lengths of stay were discharged to long-term care facilities. This observation is consistent with others’ reports. Studies of delays in care show that at least 10% of all hospital days can be attributed to delays in discharge, especially to SNFs. In the most recent study, 11% of hospital days were deemed unnecessary by hospitalists, with one-third of those delays due to lack of availability at an extended care facility.¹⁰ Six years earlier, Carey et al. found that 13.5% of inpatient days were unnecessary, with more than 60% of delays attributable to waiting for discharge to a SNF.¹¹

How, then, might we curtail unnecessary waiting, and whose job is it to solve the problem? The prospective payment system should reward hospitals for eliminating waiting—particularly those hospitals operating at capacity, for which the opportunity costs of occupied beds are most acute. Hospitalists, per se, have no incentive to discharge patients who are waiting; these patients are easy to round on, rarely have emergencies, and generate daily bills. Even when hospitalists are employed by the hospital and incentives for both are aligned, hospitalists may still be powerless to discharge waiting patients, summon busy consultants, or create extra slots in the endoscopy suite.

The move to value at the system level may offer hope. As health systems become responsible for the total cost of care, their focus must shift from the individual areas where care is provided to the transitions of care between treatment areas. It is in these transitions that US healthcare has failed most spectacularly, and consequently, it is where the greatest opportunity lies.

To date, most discharge interventions have focused on communication, with a goal of improving patient safety and, to a lesser extent, preventing readmissions. Partnering with SNFs can reduce the rate of readmissions,¹² but for the most part, the incentives for hospitals and post-acute care facilities remain misaligned. Because post-acute care facilities are paid per diem, they have little incentive to reduce patients’ stays or to admit new patients, who are more expensive to care for than existing ones. Physicians round on SNF patients infrequently and have no incentive to discharge patients, exacerbating the problem. Because post-acute care represents a growing proportion of costs for both medical and surgical patients, health systems will need to either have their own facilities or enter into contracts that align the incentives.

What can hospitalists do? As the predominant coordinators of hospitalized patients’ care both for medical and surgical teams, hospitalists meaningfully impact readmissions and lengths of stay through the care they provide.¹³ More important, as their roles in optimizing hospital throughput¹⁴ continue to expand, hospitalists are perhaps best positioned to observe a diverse range of inefficiencies and inadequacies in inpatient practice and translate those observations into new systems of care. Through thoughtful participation in hospital operations, administration, and health services research, hospitalists hold the key to improving the value of care we provide.

Disclosure 

Nothing to report.

Whether robbing banks or reducing healthcare spending, it makes sense to go where the money is. In the case of healthcare, 32% of spending goes to inpatient care, so hospitals represent a logical target for cost-reduction efforts. Because most hospital costs are fixed, there are basically 2 approaches to reducing spending—shorten length of stay or keep patients out of the hospital altogether. The government has tried both, using the power of financial incentives to spur adoption.

Faced with soaring hospital costs in the 1980s, Medicare introduced its prospective payment system, offering hospitals a fixed payment for each specific Diagnosis-Related Group. Hospitals responded by discharging patients sooner, with a resultant rise in admissions to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and rapid growth of the home care industry. Length of stay fell dramatically, dropping 9% in 1984 alone.¹ It continued to decline through the 1990s, falling by almost 20% between 1993 and 2000. In the following decade, despite the rise of hospital medicine, the rate of decrease slowed to 0.2% per year.²

Attention then turned to readmissions. In 2008, the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee proposed that hospitals with high risk-adjusted readmission rates receive lower payments, arguing that readmissions accounted for $15 billion in Medicare spending and that many were preventable. Thus the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program was born, introducing readmission penalties in 2012.

Numerous interventions emerged from government and nongovernment parties to reduce readmissions. Many used intensive transitional care programs focusing on early follow-up or medication safety, and some even went as far as providing transitional housing.³ Shortly after passage of the Affordable Care Act, readmission rates fell rapidly. Within a few years, however, the rate of decline slowed dramatically and may have reached a plateau.⁴ Many have argued that only a small proportion of readmissions are preventable and that there are more direct ways to promote improved discharge planning without diverting resources from other areas.⁵ It seems that readmissions may not be feasibly reduced much further.

With the advent of accountable care organizations, health systems are now turning their focus to the small population of patients who consume a disproportionate share of healthcare dollars. Because the top 1% of patients—so-called super-utilizers—account for 21% of spending, efforts to reduce their utilization could produce outsized returns.⁶ Initial anecdotal reports described patients with complex physical, behavior, and social needs receiving fragmented care resulting in myriad expensive admissions. The response comprised teams of social workers and community health workers coupled with robust primary care, formulating individualized solutions. However, data supporting the effectiveness of this common-sense approach are lacking. In addition, our understanding of high-cost patients is evolving. For one thing, being a super-utilizer is often temporary, as just over one-quarter are still in that category a year later.⁷ Moreover, not all high-cost patients are frequently admitted.⁸

In this issue of The Journal of Hospital Medicine, Wick et al.⁹ provide additional insight into high utilizers of hospital services. The authors compare definitions of high utilizers based on cost, number of admissions, or cumulative length of stay over one year. Only 10 percent of high utilizers met all 3 definitions. The overlap between high utilizers by cost and length of stay was twice the overlap between high utilizers by number of admissions and either group. This finding is not surprising because hospitals have high fixed costs, so total cost tends to mirror length of stay.

The study was performed in Canada, and the overlap among these groups may be different in the US. The Canadian patients were hospitalized less frequently than their American counterparts, perhaps reflecting better access to primary care in the Canadian system. Regardless, Wick et al.⁹ add to the growing literature suggesting that the terms “high utilization” and “high cost” do not always describe the same population. This finding is important because strategies aimed at patients who are frequently admitted may not be effective for those who generate the highest costs. In trying to reduce overall costs, it may be time to revisit length of stay.

Given the long history of prospective payment in the US and the stagnation in length of stay over the past decade, it is reasonable to wonder whether further reductions are possible. In the study by Wick et al.,⁹ patients with longer lengths of stay were discharged to long-term care facilities. This observation is consistent with others’ reports. Studies of delays in care show that at least 10% of all hospital days can be attributed to delays in discharge, especially to SNFs. In the most recent study, 11% of hospital days were deemed unnecessary by hospitalists, with one-third of those delays due to lack of availability at an extended care facility.¹⁰ Six years earlier, Carey et al. found that 13.5% of inpatient days were unnecessary, with more than 60% of delays attributable to waiting for discharge to a SNF.¹¹

How, then, might we curtail unnecessary waiting, and whose job is it to solve the problem? The prospective payment system should reward hospitals for eliminating waiting—particularly those hospitals operating at capacity, for which the opportunity costs of occupied beds are most acute. Hospitalists, per se, have no incentive to discharge patients who are waiting; these patients are easy to round on, rarely have emergencies, and generate daily bills. Even when hospitalists are employed by the hospital and incentives for both are aligned, hospitalists may still be powerless to discharge waiting patients, summon busy consultants, or create extra slots in the endoscopy suite.

The move to value at the system level may offer hope. As health systems become responsible for the total cost of care, their focus must shift from the individual areas where care is provided to the transitions of care between treatment areas. It is in these transitions that US healthcare has failed most spectacularly, and consequently, it is where the greatest opportunity lies.

To date, most discharge interventions have focused on communication, with a goal of improving patient safety and, to a lesser extent, preventing readmissions. Partnering with SNFs can reduce the rate of readmissions,¹² but for the most part, the incentives for hospitals and post-acute care facilities remain misaligned. Because post-acute care facilities are paid per diem, they have little incentive to reduce patients’ stays or to admit new patients, who are more expensive to care for than existing ones. Physicians round on SNF patients infrequently and have no incentive to discharge patients, exacerbating the problem. Because post-acute care represents a growing proportion of costs for both medical and surgical patients, health systems will need to either have their own facilities or enter into contracts that align the incentives.

What can hospitalists do? As the predominant coordinators of hospitalized patients’ care both for medical and surgical teams, hospitalists meaningfully impact readmissions and lengths of stay through the care they provide.¹³ More important, as their roles in optimizing hospital throughput¹⁴ continue to expand, hospitalists are perhaps best positioned to observe a diverse range of inefficiencies and inadequacies in inpatient practice and translate those observations into new systems of care. Through thoughtful participation in hospital operations, administration, and health services research, hospitalists hold the key to improving the value of care we provide.

Disclosure 

Nothing to report.

Communication is the foundation of medical care.¹ Effective communication can improve health outcomes, safety, adherence, satisfaction, trust, and enable genuine informed consent and decision-making.^2-9 Furthermore, high-quality communication increases provider engagement and workplace satisfaction, while reducing stress and malpractice risk.^10-15

Direct measurement of communication in the healthcare setting can be challenging. The “Four Habits Model,” which is derived from a synthesis of empiric studies^8,16-20 and theoretical models^21-24 of communication, offers 1 framework for assessing healthcare communication. The conceptual model underlying the 4 habits has been validated in studies of physician and patient satisfaction.^1,4,25-27 The 4 habits are: investing in the beginning, eliciting the patient’s perspective, demonstrating empathy, and investing in the end. Each habit is divided into several identifiable tasks or skill sets, which can be reliably measured using validated tools and checklists.²⁸ One such instrument, the Four Habits Coding Scheme (4HCS), has been evaluated against other tools and demonstrated overall satisfactory inter-rater reliability and validity.^29,30

The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey, developed under the direction of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, is an established national standard for measuring patient perceptions of care. HCAHPS retrospectively measures global perceptions of communication, support and empathy from physicians and staff, processes of care, and the overall patient experience. HCAHPS scores were first collected nationally in 2006 and have been publicly reported since 2008.³¹ With the introduction of value-based purchasing in 2012, health system revenues are now tied to HCAHPS survey performance.³² As a result, hospitals are financially motivated to improve HCAHPS scores but lack evidence-based methods for doing so. Some healthcare organizations have invested in communication training programs based on the available literature and best practices.^2,33-35 However, it is not known how, if at all, HCAHPS scores relate to physicians’ real-time observed communication skills.

To examine the relationship between physician communication, as reported by global HCAHPS scores, and the quality of physician communication skills in specific encounters, we observed hospitalist physicians during inpatient bedside rounds and measured their communication skills using the 4HCS.

Study Design

The study utilized a cross sectional design; physicians who consented were observed on rounds during 3 separate encounters, and we compared hospitalists’ 4HCS scores to their HCAHPS scores to assess the correlation. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Cleveland Clinic.

Population

The study was conducted at the main campus of the Cleveland Clinic. All physicians specializing in hospital medicine who had received 10 or more completed HCAHPS survey responses while rounding on a medicine service in the past year were invited to participate in the study. Participation was voluntary; night hospitalists were excluded. A research nurse was trained in the Four Habits Model²⁸ and in the use of the 4HCS coding scheme by the principal investigator. The nurse observed each physician and ascertained the presence of communication behaviors using the 4HCS tool. Physicians were observed between August 2013 and August 2014. Multiple observations per physician could occur on the same day, but only 1 observation per patient was used for analysis. Observations consisted of a physician’s first encounter with a hospitalized patient, with the patient’s consent. Observations were conducted during encounters with English-speaking and cognitively intact patients only. Resident physicians were permitted to stay and conduct rounds per their normal routine. Patient information was not collected as part of the study.

Measures

HCAHPS. For each physician, we extracted all HCAHPS scores that were collected from our hospital’s Press Ganey database. The HCAHPS survey contains 22 core questions divided into 7 themes or domains, 1 of which is doctor communication. The survey uses frequency-based questions with possible answers fixed on a 4-point scale (4=always, 3=usually, 2=sometimes, 1=never). Our primary outcome was the doctor communication domain, which comprises 3 questions: 1) During this hospital stay, how often did the doctors treat you with respect? 2) During this hospital stay, how often did the doctors listen to you? and 3) During this hospital stay, how often did the doctors explain things in a language you can understand? Because CMS counts only the percentage of responses that are graded “always,” so-called “top box” scoring, we used the same measure.

The HCAHPS scores are always attributed to the physician at the time of discharge even if he may not have been responsible for the care of the patient during the entire hospital course. To mitigate contamination from patients seen by multiple providers, we cross-matched length of stay (LOS) data with billing data to determine the proportion of days a patient was seen by a single provider during the entire length of stay. We stratified patients seen by the attending providers to less than 50%, 50% to less than 100%, and at 100% of the LOS. However, we were unable to identify which patients were seen by other consultants or by residents due to limitations in data gathering and the nature of the database.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Physician characteristics were summarized with standard descriptive statistics. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between HCAHPS and 4HCS scores. All analyses were performed with RStudio (Boston, MA). The Pearson correlation between the averaged HCAHPS and 4HCS scores was also computed. A correlation with a P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. With 28 physicians, the study had a power of 88% to detect a moderate correlation (greater than 0.50) with a 2-sided alpha of 0.05. We also computed the correlations based on the subgroups of data with patients seen by providers for less than 50%, 50% to less than 100%, and 100% of LOS. All analyses were conducted in SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).³⁶

There were 31 physicians who met our inclusion criteria. Of 29 volunteers, 28 were observed during 3 separate inpatient encounters and made up the final sample. A total of 1003 HCAHPS survey responses were available for these physicians. Participants were predominantly female (60.7%), with an average age of 39 years. They were in practice for an average of 4 years (12 were in practice more than 5 years), and 9 were observed on a teaching rotation.

The means of the overall 4HCS scores per observation were 17.39 ± 2.33 for the first, 17.00 ± 2.37 for the second, and 17.43 ± 2.36 for third bedside observation. The mean 4HCS scores per observation, broken down by habit, appear in Table 1. The ICC among the repeated scores within the same physician was 0.81. The median number of HCAHPS survey returns was 32 (range = [8, 85], with mean = 35.8, interquartile range = [16, 54]). The median overall HCAHPS doctor communication score was 89.6 (range = 80.9-93.7). Participants scored the highest in the respect subdomain and the lowest in the explain subdomain. Median HCAHPS scores and ranges appear in Table 2.

In this observational study of hospitalist physicians at a large tertiary care center, we found that communication skills, as measured by the 4HCS, varied substantially among physicians but were highly correlated within patients of the same physician. However, there was virtually no correlation between the attending physician of record’s 4HCS scores and their HCAHPS communication scores. When we limited our analysis to patients who saw only 1 hospitalist throughout their stay, there were moderate correlations between demonstration of empathy and both the HCAHPS respect score and overall doctor communication score. There were no trends across the strata of hospitalist involvement. It is important to note that the addition of even 1 different hospitalist to the LOS removes any association. Habits 1 and 2 are close to significance in the 100% subgroup, with a weak correlation. Interestingly, Habit 4, which focuses on creating a plan with the patient, showed no correlation at all with patients reporting that doctors explained things in language they could understand.

Development and testing of the HCAHPS survey began in 2002, commissioned by CMS and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for the purpose of measuring patient experience in the hospital. The HCAHPS survey was endorsed by the National Quality Forum in 2005, with final approval of the national implementation granted by the Office of Management and Budget later that year. The CMS began implementation of the HCAHPS survey in 2006, with the first required public reporting of all hospitals taking place in March 2008.^37-41 Based on CMS’ value-based purchasing initiative, hospitals with low HCAHPS scores have faced substantial penalties since 2012. Under these circumstances, it is important that the HCAHPS measures what it purports to measure. Because HCAHPS was designed to compare hospitals, testing was limited to assessment of internal reliability, hospital-level reliability, and construct validity. External validation with known measures of physician communication was not performed.⁴¹ Our study appears to be the first to compare HCAHPS scores to directly observed measures of physician communication skills. The lack of association between the 2 should sound a cautionary note to hospitals who seek to tie individual compensation to HCAHPS scores to improve them. In particular, the survey asks for a rating for all the patient’s doctors, not just the primary hospitalist. We found that, for hospital stays with just 1 hospitalist, the HCAHPS score reflected observed expression of empathy, although the correlation was only moderate, and HCAHPS were not correlated with other communication skills. Of all communication skills, empathy may be most important. Almost the entire body of research on physician communication cites empathy as a central skill. Empathy improves patient outcomes^{1-9,13-14,16-18,42} such as adherence to treatment, loyalty, and perception of care; and provider outcomes^10-12,15 such as reduced burnout and a decreased likelihood of malpractice litigation.

It is less clear why other communication skills did not correlate with HCAHPS, but several differences in the measures themselves and how they were obtained might be responsible. It is possible that HCAHPS measures something broader than physician communication. In addition, the 4HCS was developed and normed on outpatient encounters as is true for virtually all doctor-patient coding schemes.⁴³ Little is known about inpatient communication best practices. The timing of HCAHPS may also degrade the relationship between observed and reported communication. The HCAHPS questionnaires, collected after discharge, are retrospective reconstructions that are subject to recall bias and recency effects.^44,45 In contrast, our observations took place in real time and were specific to the face-to-face interactions that take place when physicians engage patients at the bedside. Third, the response rate for HCAHPS surveys is only 30%, leading to potential sample bias.⁴⁶ Respondents represent discharged patients who are willing and able to answer surveys, and may not be representative of all hospitalized patients. Finally, as with all global questions, the meaning any individual patient assigns to terms like “respect” may vary.

Our study has several limitations. The HCAHPS and 4HCS scores were not obtained from the same sample of patients. It is possible that the patients who were observed were not representative of the patients who completed the HCAHPS surveys. In addition, the only type of encounter observed was the initial visit between the hospitalist and the patient, and did not include communication during follow-up visits or on the day of discharge. However, there was a strong ICC among the 4HCS scores, implying that the 4HCS measures an inherent physician skill, which should be consistent across patients and encounters. Coding bias of the habits by a single observer could not be excluded. High intra-class correlation could be due in part to observer preferences for particular communication styles. Our sample included only 28 physicians. Although our study was powered to rule out a moderate correlation between 4HCS scores and HCAHPS scores (Pearson correlation coefficient greater than 0.5), we cannot exclude weaker correlations. Most correlations that we observed were so small that they would not be clinically meaningful, even in a much larger sample.

Our findings that HCAHPS scores did not correlate with the communication skills of the attending of record have some important implications. In an environment of value-based purchasing, most hospital systems are interested in identifying modifiable provider behaviors that optimize efficiency and payment structures. This study shows that directly measured communication skills do not correlate with HCAHPS scores as generally reported, indicating that HCAHPS may be measuring a broader domain than only physician communication skills. Better attribution based on the proportion of care provided by an individual physician could make the scores more useful for individual comparisons, but most institutions do not report their data in this way. Given this limitation, hospitals should refrain from comparing and incentivizing individual physicians based on their HCAHPS scores, because this measure was not designed for this purpose and does not appear to reflect an individual’s skills. This is important in the current environment in which hospitals face substantial penalties for underperformance but lack specific tools to improve their scores. Furthermore, there is concern that this type of measurement creates perverse incentives that may adversely alter clinical practice with the aim of improving scores.⁴⁶

Training clinicians in communication and teaming skills is one potential means of increasing overall scores.¹⁵ Improving doctor-patient and team relationships is also the right thing to do. It is increasingly being demanded by patients and has always been a deep source of satisfaction for physicians.^15,47 Moreover, there is an increasingly robust literature that relates face-to-face communication to biomedical and psychosocial outcomes of care.⁴⁸ Identifying individual physicians who need help with communication skills is a worthwhile goal. Unfortunately, the HCAHPS survey does not appear to be the appropriate tool for this purpose.

Disclosure

The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Division of Clinical Research, Research Programs Committees provided funding support. No funding source had any role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication. The authors have no conflicts of interest for this study.

Communication is the foundation of medical care.¹ Effective communication can improve health outcomes, safety, adherence, satisfaction, trust, and enable genuine informed consent and decision-making.^2-9 Furthermore, high-quality communication increases provider engagement and workplace satisfaction, while reducing stress and malpractice risk.^10-15

Direct measurement of communication in the healthcare setting can be challenging. The “Four Habits Model,” which is derived from a synthesis of empiric studies^8,16-20 and theoretical models^21-24 of communication, offers 1 framework for assessing healthcare communication. The conceptual model underlying the 4 habits has been validated in studies of physician and patient satisfaction.^1,4,25-27 The 4 habits are: investing in the beginning, eliciting the patient’s perspective, demonstrating empathy, and investing in the end. Each habit is divided into several identifiable tasks or skill sets, which can be reliably measured using validated tools and checklists.²⁸ One such instrument, the Four Habits Coding Scheme (4HCS), has been evaluated against other tools and demonstrated overall satisfactory inter-rater reliability and validity.^29,30

The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey, developed under the direction of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, is an established national standard for measuring patient perceptions of care. HCAHPS retrospectively measures global perceptions of communication, support and empathy from physicians and staff, processes of care, and the overall patient experience. HCAHPS scores were first collected nationally in 2006 and have been publicly reported since 2008.³¹ With the introduction of value-based purchasing in 2012, health system revenues are now tied to HCAHPS survey performance.³² As a result, hospitals are financially motivated to improve HCAHPS scores but lack evidence-based methods for doing so. Some healthcare organizations have invested in communication training programs based on the available literature and best practices.^2,33-35 However, it is not known how, if at all, HCAHPS scores relate to physicians’ real-time observed communication skills.

To examine the relationship between physician communication, as reported by global HCAHPS scores, and the quality of physician communication skills in specific encounters, we observed hospitalist physicians during inpatient bedside rounds and measured their communication skills using the 4HCS.

Study Design

The study utilized a cross sectional design; physicians who consented were observed on rounds during 3 separate encounters, and we compared hospitalists’ 4HCS scores to their HCAHPS scores to assess the correlation. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Cleveland Clinic.

Population

The study was conducted at the main campus of the Cleveland Clinic. All physicians specializing in hospital medicine who had received 10 or more completed HCAHPS survey responses while rounding on a medicine service in the past year were invited to participate in the study. Participation was voluntary; night hospitalists were excluded. A research nurse was trained in the Four Habits Model²⁸ and in the use of the 4HCS coding scheme by the principal investigator. The nurse observed each physician and ascertained the presence of communication behaviors using the 4HCS tool. Physicians were observed between August 2013 and August 2014. Multiple observations per physician could occur on the same day, but only 1 observation per patient was used for analysis. Observations consisted of a physician’s first encounter with a hospitalized patient, with the patient’s consent. Observations were conducted during encounters with English-speaking and cognitively intact patients only. Resident physicians were permitted to stay and conduct rounds per their normal routine. Patient information was not collected as part of the study.

Measures

HCAHPS. For each physician, we extracted all HCAHPS scores that were collected from our hospital’s Press Ganey database. The HCAHPS survey contains 22 core questions divided into 7 themes or domains, 1 of which is doctor communication. The survey uses frequency-based questions with possible answers fixed on a 4-point scale (4=always, 3=usually, 2=sometimes, 1=never). Our primary outcome was the doctor communication domain, which comprises 3 questions: 1) During this hospital stay, how often did the doctors treat you with respect? 2) During this hospital stay, how often did the doctors listen to you? and 3) During this hospital stay, how often did the doctors explain things in a language you can understand? Because CMS counts only the percentage of responses that are graded “always,” so-called “top box” scoring, we used the same measure.

The HCAHPS scores are always attributed to the physician at the time of discharge even if he may not have been responsible for the care of the patient during the entire hospital course. To mitigate contamination from patients seen by multiple providers, we cross-matched length of stay (LOS) data with billing data to determine the proportion of days a patient was seen by a single provider during the entire length of stay. We stratified patients seen by the attending providers to less than 50%, 50% to less than 100%, and at 100% of the LOS. However, we were unable to identify which patients were seen by other consultants or by residents due to limitations in data gathering and the nature of the database.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Physician characteristics were summarized with standard descriptive statistics. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between HCAHPS and 4HCS scores. All analyses were performed with RStudio (Boston, MA). The Pearson correlation between the averaged HCAHPS and 4HCS scores was also computed. A correlation with a P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. With 28 physicians, the study had a power of 88% to detect a moderate correlation (greater than 0.50) with a 2-sided alpha of 0.05. We also computed the correlations based on the subgroups of data with patients seen by providers for less than 50%, 50% to less than 100%, and 100% of LOS. All analyses were conducted in SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).³⁶

There were 31 physicians who met our inclusion criteria. Of 29 volunteers, 28 were observed during 3 separate inpatient encounters and made up the final sample. A total of 1003 HCAHPS survey responses were available for these physicians. Participants were predominantly female (60.7%), with an average age of 39 years. They were in practice for an average of 4 years (12 were in practice more than 5 years), and 9 were observed on a teaching rotation.

The means of the overall 4HCS scores per observation were 17.39 ± 2.33 for the first, 17.00 ± 2.37 for the second, and 17.43 ± 2.36 for third bedside observation. The mean 4HCS scores per observation, broken down by habit, appear in Table 1. The ICC among the repeated scores within the same physician was 0.81. The median number of HCAHPS survey returns was 32 (range = [8, 85], with mean = 35.8, interquartile range = [16, 54]). The median overall HCAHPS doctor communication score was 89.6 (range = 80.9-93.7). Participants scored the highest in the respect subdomain and the lowest in the explain subdomain. Median HCAHPS scores and ranges appear in Table 2.

In this observational study of hospitalist physicians at a large tertiary care center, we found that communication skills, as measured by the 4HCS, varied substantially among physicians but were highly correlated within patients of the same physician. However, there was virtually no correlation between the attending physician of record’s 4HCS scores and their HCAHPS communication scores. When we limited our analysis to patients who saw only 1 hospitalist throughout their stay, there were moderate correlations between demonstration of empathy and both the HCAHPS respect score and overall doctor communication score. There were no trends across the strata of hospitalist involvement. It is important to note that the addition of even 1 different hospitalist to the LOS removes any association. Habits 1 and 2 are close to significance in the 100% subgroup, with a weak correlation. Interestingly, Habit 4, which focuses on creating a plan with the patient, showed no correlation at all with patients reporting that doctors explained things in language they could understand.

Development and testing of the HCAHPS survey began in 2002, commissioned by CMS and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for the purpose of measuring patient experience in the hospital. The HCAHPS survey was endorsed by the National Quality Forum in 2005, with final approval of the national implementation granted by the Office of Management and Budget later that year. The CMS began implementation of the HCAHPS survey in 2006, with the first required public reporting of all hospitals taking place in March 2008.^37-41 Based on CMS’ value-based purchasing initiative, hospitals with low HCAHPS scores have faced substantial penalties since 2012. Under these circumstances, it is important that the HCAHPS measures what it purports to measure. Because HCAHPS was designed to compare hospitals, testing was limited to assessment of internal reliability, hospital-level reliability, and construct validity. External validation with known measures of physician communication was not performed.⁴¹ Our study appears to be the first to compare HCAHPS scores to directly observed measures of physician communication skills. The lack of association between the 2 should sound a cautionary note to hospitals who seek to tie individual compensation to HCAHPS scores to improve them. In particular, the survey asks for a rating for all the patient’s doctors, not just the primary hospitalist. We found that, for hospital stays with just 1 hospitalist, the HCAHPS score reflected observed expression of empathy, although the correlation was only moderate, and HCAHPS were not correlated with other communication skills. Of all communication skills, empathy may be most important. Almost the entire body of research on physician communication cites empathy as a central skill. Empathy improves patient outcomes^{1-9,13-14,16-18,42} such as adherence to treatment, loyalty, and perception of care; and provider outcomes^10-12,15 such as reduced burnout and a decreased likelihood of malpractice litigation.

It is less clear why other communication skills did not correlate with HCAHPS, but several differences in the measures themselves and how they were obtained might be responsible. It is possible that HCAHPS measures something broader than physician communication. In addition, the 4HCS was developed and normed on outpatient encounters as is true for virtually all doctor-patient coding schemes.⁴³ Little is known about inpatient communication best practices. The timing of HCAHPS may also degrade the relationship between observed and reported communication. The HCAHPS questionnaires, collected after discharge, are retrospective reconstructions that are subject to recall bias and recency effects.^44,45 In contrast, our observations took place in real time and were specific to the face-to-face interactions that take place when physicians engage patients at the bedside. Third, the response rate for HCAHPS surveys is only 30%, leading to potential sample bias.⁴⁶ Respondents represent discharged patients who are willing and able to answer surveys, and may not be representative of all hospitalized patients. Finally, as with all global questions, the meaning any individual patient assigns to terms like “respect” may vary.

Our study has several limitations. The HCAHPS and 4HCS scores were not obtained from the same sample of patients. It is possible that the patients who were observed were not representative of the patients who completed the HCAHPS surveys. In addition, the only type of encounter observed was the initial visit between the hospitalist and the patient, and did not include communication during follow-up visits or on the day of discharge. However, there was a strong ICC among the 4HCS scores, implying that the 4HCS measures an inherent physician skill, which should be consistent across patients and encounters. Coding bias of the habits by a single observer could not be excluded. High intra-class correlation could be due in part to observer preferences for particular communication styles. Our sample included only 28 physicians. Although our study was powered to rule out a moderate correlation between 4HCS scores and HCAHPS scores (Pearson correlation coefficient greater than 0.5), we cannot exclude weaker correlations. Most correlations that we observed were so small that they would not be clinically meaningful, even in a much larger sample.

Our findings that HCAHPS scores did not correlate with the communication skills of the attending of record have some important implications. In an environment of value-based purchasing, most hospital systems are interested in identifying modifiable provider behaviors that optimize efficiency and payment structures. This study shows that directly measured communication skills do not correlate with HCAHPS scores as generally reported, indicating that HCAHPS may be measuring a broader domain than only physician communication skills. Better attribution based on the proportion of care provided by an individual physician could make the scores more useful for individual comparisons, but most institutions do not report their data in this way. Given this limitation, hospitals should refrain from comparing and incentivizing individual physicians based on their HCAHPS scores, because this measure was not designed for this purpose and does not appear to reflect an individual’s skills. This is important in the current environment in which hospitals face substantial penalties for underperformance but lack specific tools to improve their scores. Furthermore, there is concern that this type of measurement creates perverse incentives that may adversely alter clinical practice with the aim of improving scores.⁴⁶

Training clinicians in communication and teaming skills is one potential means of increasing overall scores.¹⁵ Improving doctor-patient and team relationships is also the right thing to do. It is increasingly being demanded by patients and has always been a deep source of satisfaction for physicians.^15,47 Moreover, there is an increasingly robust literature that relates face-to-face communication to biomedical and psychosocial outcomes of care.⁴⁸ Identifying individual physicians who need help with communication skills is a worthwhile goal. Unfortunately, the HCAHPS survey does not appear to be the appropriate tool for this purpose.

Disclosure

The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Division of Clinical Research, Research Programs Committees provided funding support. No funding source had any role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication. The authors have no conflicts of interest for this study.

Communication is the foundation of medical care.¹ Effective communication can improve health outcomes, safety, adherence, satisfaction, trust, and enable genuine informed consent and decision-making.^2-9 Furthermore, high-quality communication increases provider engagement and workplace satisfaction, while reducing stress and malpractice risk.^10-15

Direct measurement of communication in the healthcare setting can be challenging. The “Four Habits Model,” which is derived from a synthesis of empiric studies^8,16-20 and theoretical models^21-24 of communication, offers 1 framework for assessing healthcare communication. The conceptual model underlying the 4 habits has been validated in studies of physician and patient satisfaction.^1,4,25-27 The 4 habits are: investing in the beginning, eliciting the patient’s perspective, demonstrating empathy, and investing in the end. Each habit is divided into several identifiable tasks or skill sets, which can be reliably measured using validated tools and checklists.²⁸ One such instrument, the Four Habits Coding Scheme (4HCS), has been evaluated against other tools and demonstrated overall satisfactory inter-rater reliability and validity.^29,30

The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey, developed under the direction of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, is an established national standard for measuring patient perceptions of care. HCAHPS retrospectively measures global perceptions of communication, support and empathy from physicians and staff, processes of care, and the overall patient experience. HCAHPS scores were first collected nationally in 2006 and have been publicly reported since 2008.³¹ With the introduction of value-based purchasing in 2012, health system revenues are now tied to HCAHPS survey performance.³² As a result, hospitals are financially motivated to improve HCAHPS scores but lack evidence-based methods for doing so. Some healthcare organizations have invested in communication training programs based on the available literature and best practices.^2,33-35 However, it is not known how, if at all, HCAHPS scores relate to physicians’ real-time observed communication skills.

To examine the relationship between physician communication, as reported by global HCAHPS scores, and the quality of physician communication skills in specific encounters, we observed hospitalist physicians during inpatient bedside rounds and measured their communication skills using the 4HCS.

Study Design

The study utilized a cross sectional design; physicians who consented were observed on rounds during 3 separate encounters, and we compared hospitalists’ 4HCS scores to their HCAHPS scores to assess the correlation. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Cleveland Clinic.

Population

The study was conducted at the main campus of the Cleveland Clinic. All physicians specializing in hospital medicine who had received 10 or more completed HCAHPS survey responses while rounding on a medicine service in the past year were invited to participate in the study. Participation was voluntary; night hospitalists were excluded. A research nurse was trained in the Four Habits Model²⁸ and in the use of the 4HCS coding scheme by the principal investigator. The nurse observed each physician and ascertained the presence of communication behaviors using the 4HCS tool. Physicians were observed between August 2013 and August 2014. Multiple observations per physician could occur on the same day, but only 1 observation per patient was used for analysis. Observations consisted of a physician’s first encounter with a hospitalized patient, with the patient’s consent. Observations were conducted during encounters with English-speaking and cognitively intact patients only. Resident physicians were permitted to stay and conduct rounds per their normal routine. Patient information was not collected as part of the study.

Measures

HCAHPS. For each physician, we extracted all HCAHPS scores that were collected from our hospital’s Press Ganey database. The HCAHPS survey contains 22 core questions divided into 7 themes or domains, 1 of which is doctor communication. The survey uses frequency-based questions with possible answers fixed on a 4-point scale (4=always, 3=usually, 2=sometimes, 1=never). Our primary outcome was the doctor communication domain, which comprises 3 questions: 1) During this hospital stay, how often did the doctors treat you with respect? 2) During this hospital stay, how often did the doctors listen to you? and 3) During this hospital stay, how often did the doctors explain things in a language you can understand? Because CMS counts only the percentage of responses that are graded “always,” so-called “top box” scoring, we used the same measure.

The HCAHPS scores are always attributed to the physician at the time of discharge even if he may not have been responsible for the care of the patient during the entire hospital course. To mitigate contamination from patients seen by multiple providers, we cross-matched length of stay (LOS) data with billing data to determine the proportion of days a patient was seen by a single provider during the entire length of stay. We stratified patients seen by the attending providers to less than 50%, 50% to less than 100%, and at 100% of the LOS. However, we were unable to identify which patients were seen by other consultants or by residents due to limitations in data gathering and the nature of the database.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Physician characteristics were summarized with standard descriptive statistics. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between HCAHPS and 4HCS scores. All analyses were performed with RStudio (Boston, MA). The Pearson correlation between the averaged HCAHPS and 4HCS scores was also computed. A correlation with a P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. With 28 physicians, the study had a power of 88% to detect a moderate correlation (greater than 0.50) with a 2-sided alpha of 0.05. We also computed the correlations based on the subgroups of data with patients seen by providers for less than 50%, 50% to less than 100%, and 100% of LOS. All analyses were conducted in SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).³⁶

There were 31 physicians who met our inclusion criteria. Of 29 volunteers, 28 were observed during 3 separate inpatient encounters and made up the final sample. A total of 1003 HCAHPS survey responses were available for these physicians. Participants were predominantly female (60.7%), with an average age of 39 years. They were in practice for an average of 4 years (12 were in practice more than 5 years), and 9 were observed on a teaching rotation.

The means of the overall 4HCS scores per observation were 17.39 ± 2.33 for the first, 17.00 ± 2.37 for the second, and 17.43 ± 2.36 for third bedside observation. The mean 4HCS scores per observation, broken down by habit, appear in Table 1. The ICC among the repeated scores within the same physician was 0.81. The median number of HCAHPS survey returns was 32 (range = [8, 85], with mean = 35.8, interquartile range = [16, 54]). The median overall HCAHPS doctor communication score was 89.6 (range = 80.9-93.7). Participants scored the highest in the respect subdomain and the lowest in the explain subdomain. Median HCAHPS scores and ranges appear in Table 2.

In this observational study of hospitalist physicians at a large tertiary care center, we found that communication skills, as measured by the 4HCS, varied substantially among physicians but were highly correlated within patients of the same physician. However, there was virtually no correlation between the attending physician of record’s 4HCS scores and their HCAHPS communication scores. When we limited our analysis to patients who saw only 1 hospitalist throughout their stay, there were moderate correlations between demonstration of empathy and both the HCAHPS respect score and overall doctor communication score. There were no trends across the strata of hospitalist involvement. It is important to note that the addition of even 1 different hospitalist to the LOS removes any association. Habits 1 and 2 are close to significance in the 100% subgroup, with a weak correlation. Interestingly, Habit 4, which focuses on creating a plan with the patient, showed no correlation at all with patients reporting that doctors explained things in language they could understand.

Development and testing of the HCAHPS survey began in 2002, commissioned by CMS and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for the purpose of measuring patient experience in the hospital. The HCAHPS survey was endorsed by the National Quality Forum in 2005, with final approval of the national implementation granted by the Office of Management and Budget later that year. The CMS began implementation of the HCAHPS survey in 2006, with the first required public reporting of all hospitals taking place in March 2008.^37-41 Based on CMS’ value-based purchasing initiative, hospitals with low HCAHPS scores have faced substantial penalties since 2012. Under these circumstances, it is important that the HCAHPS measures what it purports to measure. Because HCAHPS was designed to compare hospitals, testing was limited to assessment of internal reliability, hospital-level reliability, and construct validity. External validation with known measures of physician communication was not performed.⁴¹ Our study appears to be the first to compare HCAHPS scores to directly observed measures of physician communication skills. The lack of association between the 2 should sound a cautionary note to hospitals who seek to tie individual compensation to HCAHPS scores to improve them. In particular, the survey asks for a rating for all the patient’s doctors, not just the primary hospitalist. We found that, for hospital stays with just 1 hospitalist, the HCAHPS score reflected observed expression of empathy, although the correlation was only moderate, and HCAHPS were not correlated with other communication skills. Of all communication skills, empathy may be most important. Almost the entire body of research on physician communication cites empathy as a central skill. Empathy improves patient outcomes^{1-9,13-14,16-18,42} such as adherence to treatment, loyalty, and perception of care; and provider outcomes^10-12,15 such as reduced burnout and a decreased likelihood of malpractice litigation.

It is less clear why other communication skills did not correlate with HCAHPS, but several differences in the measures themselves and how they were obtained might be responsible. It is possible that HCAHPS measures something broader than physician communication. In addition, the 4HCS was developed and normed on outpatient encounters as is true for virtually all doctor-patient coding schemes.⁴³ Little is known about inpatient communication best practices. The timing of HCAHPS may also degrade the relationship between observed and reported communication. The HCAHPS questionnaires, collected after discharge, are retrospective reconstructions that are subject to recall bias and recency effects.^44,45 In contrast, our observations took place in real time and were specific to the face-to-face interactions that take place when physicians engage patients at the bedside. Third, the response rate for HCAHPS surveys is only 30%, leading to potential sample bias.⁴⁶ Respondents represent discharged patients who are willing and able to answer surveys, and may not be representative of all hospitalized patients. Finally, as with all global questions, the meaning any individual patient assigns to terms like “respect” may vary.

Our study has several limitations. The HCAHPS and 4HCS scores were not obtained from the same sample of patients. It is possible that the patients who were observed were not representative of the patients who completed the HCAHPS surveys. In addition, the only type of encounter observed was the initial visit between the hospitalist and the patient, and did not include communication during follow-up visits or on the day of discharge. However, there was a strong ICC among the 4HCS scores, implying that the 4HCS measures an inherent physician skill, which should be consistent across patients and encounters. Coding bias of the habits by a single observer could not be excluded. High intra-class correlation could be due in part to observer preferences for particular communication styles. Our sample included only 28 physicians. Although our study was powered to rule out a moderate correlation between 4HCS scores and HCAHPS scores (Pearson correlation coefficient greater than 0.5), we cannot exclude weaker correlations. Most correlations that we observed were so small that they would not be clinically meaningful, even in a much larger sample.

Our findings that HCAHPS scores did not correlate with the communication skills of the attending of record have some important implications. In an environment of value-based purchasing, most hospital systems are interested in identifying modifiable provider behaviors that optimize efficiency and payment structures. This study shows that directly measured communication skills do not correlate with HCAHPS scores as generally reported, indicating that HCAHPS may be measuring a broader domain than only physician communication skills. Better attribution based on the proportion of care provided by an individual physician could make the scores more useful for individual comparisons, but most institutions do not report their data in this way. Given this limitation, hospitals should refrain from comparing and incentivizing individual physicians based on their HCAHPS scores, because this measure was not designed for this purpose and does not appear to reflect an individual’s skills. This is important in the current environment in which hospitals face substantial penalties for underperformance but lack specific tools to improve their scores. Furthermore, there is concern that this type of measurement creates perverse incentives that may adversely alter clinical practice with the aim of improving scores.⁴⁶

Training clinicians in communication and teaming skills is one potential means of increasing overall scores.¹⁵ Improving doctor-patient and team relationships is also the right thing to do. It is increasingly being demanded by patients and has always been a deep source of satisfaction for physicians.^15,47 Moreover, there is an increasingly robust literature that relates face-to-face communication to biomedical and psychosocial outcomes of care.⁴⁸ Identifying individual physicians who need help with communication skills is a worthwhile goal. Unfortunately, the HCAHPS survey does not appear to be the appropriate tool for this purpose.

Disclosure

The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Division of Clinical Research, Research Programs Committees provided funding support. No funding source had any role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication. The authors have no conflicts of interest for this study.

Herpes zoster (HZ), or shingles, represents a reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus (VZV). Following primary infection, usually in childhood, the virus typically lies dormant in the dorsal root and sensory nerve ganglia for decades. The precise mechanism of reactivation is not well understood, but it is associated with a decline in cell-mediated immunity that occurs with advancing age, immune-compromising conditions such as HIV infection and cancer, or immunosuppressive therapies, including corticosteroids.¹ HZ is usually a self-limited disease characterized by unilateral dermatomal rash and pain, but can cause disseminated infection in immunocompromised individuals.²

Treatment with antiviral medications within 72 hours of rash onset can reduce acute HZ symptoms.¹ However, antiviral agents are only minimally effective in preventing postherpetic neuralgia, the most common complication of HZ.³ Therefore, efforts to reduce the burden of HZ morbidity have focused on prevention through vaccination.

Currently, the only shingles vaccine approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is Zostavax (Merck), which contains the live-attenuated Oka strain of VZV at a concentration 14 times greater than that of the varicella vaccine (Varivax, Merck). The live-attenuated vaccine boosts VZV-specific cell-mediated immunity, preventing reactivation of the latent virus.

In this article, we describe the burden of disease and review recent developments in the literature on HZ vaccine, including duration of efficacy, uptake and barriers to vaccination, cost-effectiveness, and the outlook for future vaccines.

INCIDENCE INCREASES WITH AGE

The incidence of herpes zoster in the general population is between 3 and 5 per 1,000 person-years⁴ and increases with age, especially after age 60 when the incidence can approach 13 to 15 per 1,000 person-years.^5,6 An estimated 1 million new cases occur each year in the United States, and about 6% of patients experience a second episode of HZ within 8 years.^7,8 In immunocompromised patients, the incidence of HZ is 2 to 10 times higher than in the general population.⁹

The incidence of HZ has been increasing for reasons that are unclear. After varicella vaccine was introduced into the routine childhood immunization schedule in 1995, it was hypothesized that the resultant decrease in primary varicella infections would remove a natural source of immune boosting and cause an increase in HZ incidence for up to 20 years.¹⁰ However, recent studies demonstrate that the observed increase in HZ incidence actually predates the introduction of varicella vaccine,^11–13 and the widespread use of varicella vaccine has not resulted in an increase in the incidence of HZ.¹⁴

Other potential explanations for the rise in reported incidence include increasing awareness among patients, who might previously not have sought care and among physicians, who may be more likely to make the diagnosis. Advertisement of new treatments for HZ, including gabapentin and capsaicin, probably began to increase awareness in the 1990s, as did promotion of the HZ vaccine after its licensure in 2006.

HZ can occur in people who have been vaccinated against varicella due to reactivation of the vaccine-strain virus, but the risk is lower than after infection with wild-type varicella.¹⁵ Given that the varicella vaccine has been routinely used in children for only 20 years, the long-term effect of varicella vaccination on the incidence of HZ in elderly people is unknown.

Serious complications

HZ can cause rare but serious complications including encephalitis, herpes ophthalmicus, herpes oticus, myelitis, and retinitis.¹ These can lead to long-term disability including unilateral blindness and deafness.

The most common and debilitating complication is postherpetic neuralgia, a persistent pain lasting at least 3 months, with a mean duration of 3.3 years and sometimes as long as 10 years.¹⁶ Postherpetic neuralgia occurs in 8% to 32% of patients after acute HZ,⁴ and the incidence increases with age, being most common after age 70. The chronic pain of postherpetic neuralgia has a significant adverse impact on patients’ quality of life, including physical disability and emotional distress.¹⁷ Some pain is intense, and anecdotal reports of patients committing suicide were included in the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations regarding herpes zoster vaccine.¹⁸

HZ and its complications also impose a substantial economic burden on society.¹⁹ In a population-based study, the mean direct medical costs of HZ ranged from $620 to $1,160 (2015 dollars) depending on age,²⁰ and the mean costs of postherpetic neuralgia were 2 to 5 times higher than that.^20–22 Immunocompromised patients had costs 2 to 3 times higher than those of immunocompetent adults.²³ In addition, for employed patients, HZ resulted in an average loss of 32 hours of work due to absenteeism and 84 hours due to presenteeism (ie, working while sick and therefore suboptimally).²⁴

Assuming there are 1 million cases of HZ each year, if 8% to 32% of patients go on to develop postherpetic neuralgia, that would translate into approximately $1 to $2 billion in direct medical costs. With 60% of adult patients working,²⁵ at an average wage of $23.23 per hour,²⁶ HZ illness could be responsible for another $1.6 billion in lost productivity.

EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF HZ VACCINE

In 2006, the FDA approved the live-attenuated Oka strain VZV vaccine for prevention of HZ and postherpetic neuralgia in adults age 60 and older based on findings from the Shingles Prevention Study (SPS).²⁷

The Shingles Prevention Study

This multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial²⁷ enrolled 38,546 immunocompetent persons age 60 and older. Subjects in the intervention group received a single dose of live-attenuated vaccine, and all participants were followed for up to 4.9 years after vaccination.

HZ occurred in 315 (1.636%) of the 19,254 participants in the vaccine group and in 642 (3.336%) of the 19,247 participants in the placebo group, an absolute risk reduction of 1.7%, number needed to treat 59, relative risk reduction 51%, P < .001. Similarly, postherpetic neuralgia occurred in 27 (0.140%) of the 19,254 vaccine recipients and in 80 (0.416%) of the placebo recipients (an absolute risk reduction of 0.276%, number needed to treat 362, relative risk reduction 66%, P < .001). The investigators calculated that vaccination reduced the  overall burden of illness by 61% (Table 1).

The efficacy against HZ incidence decreased with age,²⁸ but the efficacy against postherpetic neuralgia did not. In addition, vaccine recipients who developed HZ generally had less severe manifestations.

The safety of the vaccine was assessed for all participants in the SPS. In addition, one-sixth of SPS participants were enrolled in a safety substudy. These participants completed a detailed report card regarding all medically important events within the first 42 days. Forty-eight percent of the vaccine group and 17% of the placebo group (P < .05) experienced adverse events, primarily at the injection site. Less than 1% of all local reactions were severe.²⁹ Serious adverse events were rare (< 2%), but occurred significantly more often in the vaccinated group.

Short-Term Persistence Substudy

Short-term efficacy of the live-attenuated vaccine (up to 7 years) was assessed in the Short-Term Persistence Substudy (STPS), which involved 14,270 of the initial participants and reported yearly and overall vaccine efficacy.³⁰ After 5 years, the yearly efficacy against postherpetic neuralgia incidence declined to 32% and was no longer statistically significant. Efficacy against HZ incidence and burden of illness displayed the same pattern. After the end of the STPS, all subjects in the placebo group received vaccination.

Long-Term Persistence Substudy

Those in the intervention group were followed for an additional 4 years in the Long-Term Persistence Substudy (LTPS).³¹ Due to the lack of concurrent controls in the LTPS, the authors used regression models based on historical controls to estimate contemporary population incidence of HZ and postherpetic neuralgia  for comparison.

Efficacy continued to decline over time, and by 10 years after vaccination there was no difference between vaccinated patients and historical controls in the rate of any end point (ie, efficacy declined to zero).

A trial of booster vaccination

Because many patients are vaccinated at age 60, waning immunity could leave them vulnerable to HZ and postherpetic neuralgia by age 70. A potential solution would be to give a booster dose after 10 years.

A recent phase 3 clinical trial of adults age 70 years and older found that a booster dose of live-attenuated vaccine was as safe and immunogenic as an initial dose.³² While antibody responses were similar in the boosted group and the newly vaccinated group, cell-mediated immunity was higher in the boosted group.

Because prevention of HZ is generally via cell-mediated immunity, the booster might be more effective than the initial vaccination, but clinical trials measuring actual cases prevented will be required to prove it. A booster dose is not currently recommended.

A trial of vaccination in adults 50 to 59

In 2011, the FDA extended its approval of HZ vaccine for use in adults ages 50 to 59.³³

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in this age group,³³ the vaccine reduced HZ incidence by almost 70% (absolute risk reduction 0.614%, number needed to treat 156; Table 1), but the severity of HZ cases was not affected. There were too few cases of postherpetic neuralgia to assess the efficacy for this end point. The study followed patients for only 1.5 years after vaccination, so the duration of efficacy is unknown.

As in the older recipients, the vaccine was well tolerated; injection-site reactions and headache were the major adverse effects reported among vaccine recipients.³³

INDICATIONS AND CONTRAINDICATIONS

Although HZ vaccine is licensed for use in adults age 50 and older, the ACIP recommends it only for immunocompetent adults age 60 and older. At this time, the ACIP does not recommend HZ vaccine in those younger than 60 because of the low risk of HZ in this age group.³⁴

Any person age 60 or older should receive a single dose of the live-attenuated HZ vaccine subcutaneously, regardless of past history of HZ.

The vaccine is contraindicated in patients who have a history of allergic reaction to any vaccine component, immunosuppression or immunodeficiency conditions, and pregnancy. Specifically, people who will receive immunosuppressive therapies should have the vaccine at least 14 days before beginning treatment. Antiviral medications such as acyclovir, famciclovir, and valacyclovir should be discontinued at least 24 hours before vaccination and not resumed until 14 days later. Patients taking high-dose corticosteroids for more than 2 weeks should not be vaccinated until at least 1 month after therapy is completed.

In contrast, HZ vaccine is not contraindicated for leukemia patients who are in remission and who have not received chemotherapy or radiation for at least 3 months, or for patients receiving short-term, low-to-moderate dose, topical, intra-articular, bursal, or tendon injections of corticosteroids. Patients on low-dose methotrexate, azathioprine, or 6-mercaptopurine can also receive the vaccine.¹⁸

VACCINATION RATES ARE LOW

Although the vaccine has been recommended since 2008, uptake has been slow. Figure 1 shows the rate of HZ vaccination in adults age 60 and older surveyed in the National Health Interview Survey from 2007 to 2013.³⁵ Eight years after the vaccine was licensed, only 28% of eligible patients had been vaccinated. Assuming the current rate of increase remains constant, it will take 7 more years to reach a 60% coverage rate—the same as for pneumococcal vaccine³⁶—and 18 years to reach universal coverage.

Barriers to vaccination

Several barriers to HZ vaccination might account for the slow uptake.

For the first few years the vaccine was available, the requirement to store it frozen presented an obstacle for some physicians.³⁷ Physicians may also have been discouraged by the cumbersome Medicare reimbursement process because while the administration fee is covered through Medicare Part B, the live­-attenuated vaccine is reimbursed only through Medicare Part D, a benefit that varies by plans. Other barriers to physicians are supply shortages, high up-front costs, and uncertainties regarding the duration of vaccine protection, its safety, and side effects.^38–40

Patient barriers include lack of physician recommendation, lack of familiarity with the vaccine, high out-of-pocket costs, the perception that they are at low risk for HZ, underestimation of the pain associated with HZ and postherpetic neuralgia, and fear of vaccine adverse effects.^39,41,42

Interventions to increase vaccination rates

Certain interventions have been shown to increase vaccination adherence in general and HZ vaccination in particular. In randomized trials involving other vaccines, electronic medical record reminders supporting panel management or nurse-initiated protocols have been proven to increase vaccination rates, but these methods have not been tested for HZ vaccine specifically.^43,44

In an observational study, Chaudhry et al found that the number of HZ vaccinations administered at the Mayo Clinic increased 43% in one practice and 54% in another after the implementation of an electronic alert.⁴⁵ A randomized controlled trial showed that an informational package discussing HZ and the vaccine sent to patients via either their electronic personal health record or traditional mail increased HZ vaccination by almost 3 times.⁴⁶

Pharmacists can also influence vaccination rates. States that provide full immunization privileges to pharmacists have vaccination rates significantly higher than states with restricted or no authorization.⁴⁷

COST-EFFECTIVENESS CONSIDERATIONS

Unlike the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the ACIP does consider cost-effectiveness in their vaccine recommendations. Because of the morbidity associated with HZ and postherpetic neuralgia as well as the economic impact, vaccination is generally considered cost-effective for adults age 60 and older.^48,49

Analyses have demonstrated that cost-effectiveness hinges on 4 factors: initial vaccine efficacy, the duration of efficacy, the age-specific incidence of HZ, and the cost of the vaccine.

For patients ages 50 to 59, the incidence of HZ is low, and because the duration of vaccine efficacy is short even though initial vaccine efficacy is high, vaccination in this age group offers poor value.⁵⁰ At older ages, the incidence of HZ and postherpetic neuralgia rises, making vaccination more cost-effective. After age 60, the vaccine is cost-effective at all ages, although age 70 appears to offer the optimal trade-off between increasing incidence and declining vaccine efficacy.^48,49

For patients who plan to be vaccinated only once, waiting until age 70 would appear to offer the best value.⁵¹ For those who are willing to receive a booster dose, the optimal age for vaccination is unknown, but will likely depend on the effectiveness, cost, and duration of the booster.

A NEW HZ VACCINE

In 2015, GlaxoSmithKline tested a new HZ vaccine containing a single VZV glycoprotein in an AS01_B adjuvant system (HZ/su vaccine).⁵² In a phase 3 randomized trial involving 15,411 immunocompetent persons age 50  and older, a 2-dose schedule of HZ/su vaccine was 97% effective in preventing HZ (Table 1).⁵³ Importantly, the vaccine was equally effective in older patients.

This vaccine also had a high rate of adverse reactions, with 17% of vaccine recipients vs 3% of placebo recipients reporting events that prevented normal everyday activities for at least 1 day. However, the rate of serious adverse reactions was the same in both groups (9%). The company announced that they intended to submit a regulatory application for HZ/su vaccine in the second half of 2016.⁵⁴

Because of its high efficacy, HZ/su vaccine has the potential to change practice, but several issues must be resolved before it can supplant the current vaccine.

First, the AS01B adjuvant is not currently licensed in the United States, so it is unclear if the HZ/su vaccine can get FDA approval.^52,55

Second, there are several questions about the efficacy of the vaccine, including long-term efficacy, efficacy in the elderly, and efficacy in the case of a patient receiving only 1 of the 2 required doses.

Third, the impact of HZ/su vaccine on complications such as postherpetic neuralgia has not been established. The clinical trial (NCT01165229) examining vaccine efficacy against postherpetic neuralgia incidence and other complications in adults age 70 and older has recently been completed and data should be available soon. Given the extremely high efficacy against HZ, it is likely that it will be close to 100% effective against this complication.

Fourth, there is uncertainty as to how the HZ/su vaccine should be used in patients who have already received the live-attenuated vaccine, if it is determined that a booster is necessary.

Finally, the vaccine is not yet priced. Given its superior effectiveness, particularly in older individuals, competitive pricing could dramatically affect the market. How Medicare or other insurers cover the new vaccine will likely influence its acceptance.

HZ VACCINATION OF IMMUNOCOMPROMISED PATIENTS

Immunocompromised patients are at highest risk for developing HZ. Unfortunately, there are currently no HZ vaccines approved for use in this population. The current live-attenuated vaccine has been demonstrated to be safe, well tolerated, and immunogenic in patients age 60 and older who are receiving chronic or maintenance low to moderate doses of corticosteroids.⁵⁶

A clinical trial is being conducted to assess the immunogenicity, clinical effectiveness, and safety of the vaccine in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving antitumor necrosis factor therapy (NCT01967316). Other trials are examining vaccine efficacy and safety in patients with solid organ tumors prior to chemotherapy (NCT02444936) and in patients who will be undergoing living donor kidney transplantation (NCT00940940). Researchers are also investigating the possibility of vaccinating allogeneic stem cell donors before donation in order to protect transplant recipients against HZ (NCT01573182).

ZVHT and HZ/su vaccination in immunocompromised patients

Heat-treated varicella-zoster vaccine (ZVHT) is a potential alternative for immunocompromised patients. A 4-dose regimen has been proven to reduce the risk of HZ in patients receiving autologous hematopoietic-cell transplants for non-Hodgkin or Hodgkin lymphoma.⁵⁷

In another trial, the 4-dose ZVHT was safe and elicited significant VZV-specific T-cell response through 28 days in immunosuppressed patients with solid tumor malignancy, hematologic malignancy, human immunodeficiency virus infection with CD4 counts of 200 cells/mm³ or less, and autologous hematopoietic-cell transplants. The T-cell response was poor in allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplant recipients, however.⁵⁸

Because the HZ/su vaccine does not contain live virus, it seems particularly promising for immunocompromised patients. In phase 1 and 2 studies, a 3-dose regimen has been shown to be safe and immunogenic in hematopoietic-cell transplant recipients and HIV-infected adults with CD4 count higher than 200 cells/mm³.^59,60 A phase 3 trial assessing the efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in autologous hematopoietic-cell transplant recipients is under way (NCT01610414). Changes in recommendations for HZ vaccine in these most vulnerable populations await the results of these studies.

Herpes zoster (HZ), or shingles, represents a reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus (VZV). Following primary infection, usually in childhood, the virus typically lies dormant in the dorsal root and sensory nerve ganglia for decades. The precise mechanism of reactivation is not well understood, but it is associated with a decline in cell-mediated immunity that occurs with advancing age, immune-compromising conditions such as HIV infection and cancer, or immunosuppressive therapies, including corticosteroids.¹ HZ is usually a self-limited disease characterized by unilateral dermatomal rash and pain, but can cause disseminated infection in immunocompromised individuals.²

Treatment with antiviral medications within 72 hours of rash onset can reduce acute HZ symptoms.¹ However, antiviral agents are only minimally effective in preventing postherpetic neuralgia, the most common complication of HZ.³ Therefore, efforts to reduce the burden of HZ morbidity have focused on prevention through vaccination.

Currently, the only shingles vaccine approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is Zostavax (Merck), which contains the live-attenuated Oka strain of VZV at a concentration 14 times greater than that of the varicella vaccine (Varivax, Merck). The live-attenuated vaccine boosts VZV-specific cell-mediated immunity, preventing reactivation of the latent virus.

In this article, we describe the burden of disease and review recent developments in the literature on HZ vaccine, including duration of efficacy, uptake and barriers to vaccination, cost-effectiveness, and the outlook for future vaccines.

INCIDENCE INCREASES WITH AGE

The incidence of herpes zoster in the general population is between 3 and 5 per 1,000 person-years⁴ and increases with age, especially after age 60 when the incidence can approach 13 to 15 per 1,000 person-years.^5,6 An estimated 1 million new cases occur each year in the United States, and about 6% of patients experience a second episode of HZ within 8 years.^7,8 In immunocompromised patients, the incidence of HZ is 2 to 10 times higher than in the general population.⁹

The incidence of HZ has been increasing for reasons that are unclear. After varicella vaccine was introduced into the routine childhood immunization schedule in 1995, it was hypothesized that the resultant decrease in primary varicella infections would remove a natural source of immune boosting and cause an increase in HZ incidence for up to 20 years.¹⁰ However, recent studies demonstrate that the observed increase in HZ incidence actually predates the introduction of varicella vaccine,^11–13 and the widespread use of varicella vaccine has not resulted in an increase in the incidence of HZ.¹⁴

Other potential explanations for the rise in reported incidence include increasing awareness among patients, who might previously not have sought care and among physicians, who may be more likely to make the diagnosis. Advertisement of new treatments for HZ, including gabapentin and capsaicin, probably began to increase awareness in the 1990s, as did promotion of the HZ vaccine after its licensure in 2006.

HZ can occur in people who have been vaccinated against varicella due to reactivation of the vaccine-strain virus, but the risk is lower than after infection with wild-type varicella.¹⁵ Given that the varicella vaccine has been routinely used in children for only 20 years, the long-term effect of varicella vaccination on the incidence of HZ in elderly people is unknown.

Serious complications

HZ can cause rare but serious complications including encephalitis, herpes ophthalmicus, herpes oticus, myelitis, and retinitis.¹ These can lead to long-term disability including unilateral blindness and deafness.

The most common and debilitating complication is postherpetic neuralgia, a persistent pain lasting at least 3 months, with a mean duration of 3.3 years and sometimes as long as 10 years.¹⁶ Postherpetic neuralgia occurs in 8% to 32% of patients after acute HZ,⁴ and the incidence increases with age, being most common after age 70. The chronic pain of postherpetic neuralgia has a significant adverse impact on patients’ quality of life, including physical disability and emotional distress.¹⁷ Some pain is intense, and anecdotal reports of patients committing suicide were included in the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations regarding herpes zoster vaccine.¹⁸

HZ and its complications also impose a substantial economic burden on society.¹⁹ In a population-based study, the mean direct medical costs of HZ ranged from $620 to $1,160 (2015 dollars) depending on age,²⁰ and the mean costs of postherpetic neuralgia were 2 to 5 times higher than that.^20–22 Immunocompromised patients had costs 2 to 3 times higher than those of immunocompetent adults.²³ In addition, for employed patients, HZ resulted in an average loss of 32 hours of work due to absenteeism and 84 hours due to presenteeism (ie, working while sick and therefore suboptimally).²⁴

Assuming there are 1 million cases of HZ each year, if 8% to 32% of patients go on to develop postherpetic neuralgia, that would translate into approximately $1 to $2 billion in direct medical costs. With 60% of adult patients working,²⁵ at an average wage of $23.23 per hour,²⁶ HZ illness could be responsible for another $1.6 billion in lost productivity.

EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF HZ VACCINE

In 2006, the FDA approved the live-attenuated Oka strain VZV vaccine for prevention of HZ and postherpetic neuralgia in adults age 60 and older based on findings from the Shingles Prevention Study (SPS).²⁷

The Shingles Prevention Study

This multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial²⁷ enrolled 38,546 immunocompetent persons age 60 and older. Subjects in the intervention group received a single dose of live-attenuated vaccine, and all participants were followed for up to 4.9 years after vaccination.

HZ occurred in 315 (1.636%) of the 19,254 participants in the vaccine group and in 642 (3.336%) of the 19,247 participants in the placebo group, an absolute risk reduction of 1.7%, number needed to treat 59, relative risk reduction 51%, P < .001. Similarly, postherpetic neuralgia occurred in 27 (0.140%) of the 19,254 vaccine recipients and in 80 (0.416%) of the placebo recipients (an absolute risk reduction of 0.276%, number needed to treat 362, relative risk reduction 66%, P < .001). The investigators calculated that vaccination reduced the  overall burden of illness by 61% (Table 1).

The efficacy against HZ incidence decreased with age,²⁸ but the efficacy against postherpetic neuralgia did not. In addition, vaccine recipients who developed HZ generally had less severe manifestations.

The safety of the vaccine was assessed for all participants in the SPS. In addition, one-sixth of SPS participants were enrolled in a safety substudy. These participants completed a detailed report card regarding all medically important events within the first 42 days. Forty-eight percent of the vaccine group and 17% of the placebo group (P < .05) experienced adverse events, primarily at the injection site. Less than 1% of all local reactions were severe.²⁹ Serious adverse events were rare (< 2%), but occurred significantly more often in the vaccinated group.

Short-Term Persistence Substudy

Short-term efficacy of the live-attenuated vaccine (up to 7 years) was assessed in the Short-Term Persistence Substudy (STPS), which involved 14,270 of the initial participants and reported yearly and overall vaccine efficacy.³⁰ After 5 years, the yearly efficacy against postherpetic neuralgia incidence declined to 32% and was no longer statistically significant. Efficacy against HZ incidence and burden of illness displayed the same pattern. After the end of the STPS, all subjects in the placebo group received vaccination.

Long-Term Persistence Substudy

Those in the intervention group were followed for an additional 4 years in the Long-Term Persistence Substudy (LTPS).³¹ Due to the lack of concurrent controls in the LTPS, the authors used regression models based on historical controls to estimate contemporary population incidence of HZ and postherpetic neuralgia  for comparison.

Efficacy continued to decline over time, and by 10 years after vaccination there was no difference between vaccinated patients and historical controls in the rate of any end point (ie, efficacy declined to zero).

A trial of booster vaccination

Because many patients are vaccinated at age 60, waning immunity could leave them vulnerable to HZ and postherpetic neuralgia by age 70. A potential solution would be to give a booster dose after 10 years.

A recent phase 3 clinical trial of adults age 70 years and older found that a booster dose of live-attenuated vaccine was as safe and immunogenic as an initial dose.³² While antibody responses were similar in the boosted group and the newly vaccinated group, cell-mediated immunity was higher in the boosted group.

Because prevention of HZ is generally via cell-mediated immunity, the booster might be more effective than the initial vaccination, but clinical trials measuring actual cases prevented will be required to prove it. A booster dose is not currently recommended.

A trial of vaccination in adults 50 to 59

In 2011, the FDA extended its approval of HZ vaccine for use in adults ages 50 to 59.³³

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in this age group,³³ the vaccine reduced HZ incidence by almost 70% (absolute risk reduction 0.614%, number needed to treat 156; Table 1), but the severity of HZ cases was not affected. There were too few cases of postherpetic neuralgia to assess the efficacy for this end point. The study followed patients for only 1.5 years after vaccination, so the duration of efficacy is unknown.

As in the older recipients, the vaccine was well tolerated; injection-site reactions and headache were the major adverse effects reported among vaccine recipients.³³

INDICATIONS AND CONTRAINDICATIONS

Although HZ vaccine is licensed for use in adults age 50 and older, the ACIP recommends it only for immunocompetent adults age 60 and older. At this time, the ACIP does not recommend HZ vaccine in those younger than 60 because of the low risk of HZ in this age group.³⁴

Any person age 60 or older should receive a single dose of the live-attenuated HZ vaccine subcutaneously, regardless of past history of HZ.

The vaccine is contraindicated in patients who have a history of allergic reaction to any vaccine component, immunosuppression or immunodeficiency conditions, and pregnancy. Specifically, people who will receive immunosuppressive therapies should have the vaccine at least 14 days before beginning treatment. Antiviral medications such as acyclovir, famciclovir, and valacyclovir should be discontinued at least 24 hours before vaccination and not resumed until 14 days later. Patients taking high-dose corticosteroids for more than 2 weeks should not be vaccinated until at least 1 month after therapy is completed.

In contrast, HZ vaccine is not contraindicated for leukemia patients who are in remission and who have not received chemotherapy or radiation for at least 3 months, or for patients receiving short-term, low-to-moderate dose, topical, intra-articular, bursal, or tendon injections of corticosteroids. Patients on low-dose methotrexate, azathioprine, or 6-mercaptopurine can also receive the vaccine.¹⁸

VACCINATION RATES ARE LOW

Although the vaccine has been recommended since 2008, uptake has been slow. Figure 1 shows the rate of HZ vaccination in adults age 60 and older surveyed in the National Health Interview Survey from 2007 to 2013.³⁵ Eight years after the vaccine was licensed, only 28% of eligible patients had been vaccinated. Assuming the current rate of increase remains constant, it will take 7 more years to reach a 60% coverage rate—the same as for pneumococcal vaccine³⁶—and 18 years to reach universal coverage.

Barriers to vaccination

Several barriers to HZ vaccination might account for the slow uptake.

For the first few years the vaccine was available, the requirement to store it frozen presented an obstacle for some physicians.³⁷ Physicians may also have been discouraged by the cumbersome Medicare reimbursement process because while the administration fee is covered through Medicare Part B, the live­-attenuated vaccine is reimbursed only through Medicare Part D, a benefit that varies by plans. Other barriers to physicians are supply shortages, high up-front costs, and uncertainties regarding the duration of vaccine protection, its safety, and side effects.^38–40

Patient barriers include lack of physician recommendation, lack of familiarity with the vaccine, high out-of-pocket costs, the perception that they are at low risk for HZ, underestimation of the pain associated with HZ and postherpetic neuralgia, and fear of vaccine adverse effects.^39,41,42

Interventions to increase vaccination rates

Certain interventions have been shown to increase vaccination adherence in general and HZ vaccination in particular. In randomized trials involving other vaccines, electronic medical record reminders supporting panel management or nurse-initiated protocols have been proven to increase vaccination rates, but these methods have not been tested for HZ vaccine specifically.^43,44

In an observational study, Chaudhry et al found that the number of HZ vaccinations administered at the Mayo Clinic increased 43% in one practice and 54% in another after the implementation of an electronic alert.⁴⁵ A randomized controlled trial showed that an informational package discussing HZ and the vaccine sent to patients via either their electronic personal health record or traditional mail increased HZ vaccination by almost 3 times.⁴⁶

Pharmacists can also influence vaccination rates. States that provide full immunization privileges to pharmacists have vaccination rates significantly higher than states with restricted or no authorization.⁴⁷

COST-EFFECTIVENESS CONSIDERATIONS

Unlike the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the ACIP does consider cost-effectiveness in their vaccine recommendations. Because of the morbidity associated with HZ and postherpetic neuralgia as well as the economic impact, vaccination is generally considered cost-effective for adults age 60 and older.^48,49

Analyses have demonstrated that cost-effectiveness hinges on 4 factors: initial vaccine efficacy, the duration of efficacy, the age-specific incidence of HZ, and the cost of the vaccine.

For patients ages 50 to 59, the incidence of HZ is low, and because the duration of vaccine efficacy is short even though initial vaccine efficacy is high, vaccination in this age group offers poor value.⁵⁰ At older ages, the incidence of HZ and postherpetic neuralgia rises, making vaccination more cost-effective. After age 60, the vaccine is cost-effective at all ages, although age 70 appears to offer the optimal trade-off between increasing incidence and declining vaccine efficacy.^48,49

For patients who plan to be vaccinated only once, waiting until age 70 would appear to offer the best value.⁵¹ For those who are willing to receive a booster dose, the optimal age for vaccination is unknown, but will likely depend on the effectiveness, cost, and duration of the booster.

A NEW HZ VACCINE

In 2015, GlaxoSmithKline tested a new HZ vaccine containing a single VZV glycoprotein in an AS01_B adjuvant system (HZ/su vaccine).⁵² In a phase 3 randomized trial involving 15,411 immunocompetent persons age 50  and older, a 2-dose schedule of HZ/su vaccine was 97% effective in preventing HZ (Table 1).⁵³ Importantly, the vaccine was equally effective in older patients.

This vaccine also had a high rate of adverse reactions, with 17% of vaccine recipients vs 3% of placebo recipients reporting events that prevented normal everyday activities for at least 1 day. However, the rate of serious adverse reactions was the same in both groups (9%). The company announced that they intended to submit a regulatory application for HZ/su vaccine in the second half of 2016.⁵⁴

Because of its high efficacy, HZ/su vaccine has the potential to change practice, but several issues must be resolved before it can supplant the current vaccine.

First, the AS01B adjuvant is not currently licensed in the United States, so it is unclear if the HZ/su vaccine can get FDA approval.^52,55

Second, there are several questions about the efficacy of the vaccine, including long-term efficacy, efficacy in the elderly, and efficacy in the case of a patient receiving only 1 of the 2 required doses.

Third, the impact of HZ/su vaccine on complications such as postherpetic neuralgia has not been established. The clinical trial (NCT01165229) examining vaccine efficacy against postherpetic neuralgia incidence and other complications in adults age 70 and older has recently been completed and data should be available soon. Given the extremely high efficacy against HZ, it is likely that it will be close to 100% effective against this complication.

Fourth, there is uncertainty as to how the HZ/su vaccine should be used in patients who have already received the live-attenuated vaccine, if it is determined that a booster is necessary.

Finally, the vaccine is not yet priced. Given its superior effectiveness, particularly in older individuals, competitive pricing could dramatically affect the market. How Medicare or other insurers cover the new vaccine will likely influence its acceptance.

HZ VACCINATION OF IMMUNOCOMPROMISED PATIENTS

Immunocompromised patients are at highest risk for developing HZ. Unfortunately, there are currently no HZ vaccines approved for use in this population. The current live-attenuated vaccine has been demonstrated to be safe, well tolerated, and immunogenic in patients age 60 and older who are receiving chronic or maintenance low to moderate doses of corticosteroids.⁵⁶

A clinical trial is being conducted to assess the immunogenicity, clinical effectiveness, and safety of the vaccine in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving antitumor necrosis factor therapy (NCT01967316). Other trials are examining vaccine efficacy and safety in patients with solid organ tumors prior to chemotherapy (NCT02444936) and in patients who will be undergoing living donor kidney transplantation (NCT00940940). Researchers are also investigating the possibility of vaccinating allogeneic stem cell donors before donation in order to protect transplant recipients against HZ (NCT01573182).

ZVHT and HZ/su vaccination in immunocompromised patients

Heat-treated varicella-zoster vaccine (ZVHT) is a potential alternative for immunocompromised patients. A 4-dose regimen has been proven to reduce the risk of HZ in patients receiving autologous hematopoietic-cell transplants for non-Hodgkin or Hodgkin lymphoma.⁵⁷

In another trial, the 4-dose ZVHT was safe and elicited significant VZV-specific T-cell response through 28 days in immunosuppressed patients with solid tumor malignancy, hematologic malignancy, human immunodeficiency virus infection with CD4 counts of 200 cells/mm³ or less, and autologous hematopoietic-cell transplants. The T-cell response was poor in allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplant recipients, however.⁵⁸

Because the HZ/su vaccine does not contain live virus, it seems particularly promising for immunocompromised patients. In phase 1 and 2 studies, a 3-dose regimen has been shown to be safe and immunogenic in hematopoietic-cell transplant recipients and HIV-infected adults with CD4 count higher than 200 cells/mm³.^59,60 A phase 3 trial assessing the efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in autologous hematopoietic-cell transplant recipients is under way (NCT01610414). Changes in recommendations for HZ vaccine in these most vulnerable populations await the results of these studies.

Herpes zoster (HZ), or shingles, represents a reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus (VZV). Following primary infection, usually in childhood, the virus typically lies dormant in the dorsal root and sensory nerve ganglia for decades. The precise mechanism of reactivation is not well understood, but it is associated with a decline in cell-mediated immunity that occurs with advancing age, immune-compromising conditions such as HIV infection and cancer, or immunosuppressive therapies, including corticosteroids.¹ HZ is usually a self-limited disease characterized by unilateral dermatomal rash and pain, but can cause disseminated infection in immunocompromised individuals.²

Treatment with antiviral medications within 72 hours of rash onset can reduce acute HZ symptoms.¹ However, antiviral agents are only minimally effective in preventing postherpetic neuralgia, the most common complication of HZ.³ Therefore, efforts to reduce the burden of HZ morbidity have focused on prevention through vaccination.

Currently, the only shingles vaccine approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is Zostavax (Merck), which contains the live-attenuated Oka strain of VZV at a concentration 14 times greater than that of the varicella vaccine (Varivax, Merck). The live-attenuated vaccine boosts VZV-specific cell-mediated immunity, preventing reactivation of the latent virus.

In this article, we describe the burden of disease and review recent developments in the literature on HZ vaccine, including duration of efficacy, uptake and barriers to vaccination, cost-effectiveness, and the outlook for future vaccines.

INCIDENCE INCREASES WITH AGE

The incidence of herpes zoster in the general population is between 3 and 5 per 1,000 person-years⁴ and increases with age, especially after age 60 when the incidence can approach 13 to 15 per 1,000 person-years.^5,6 An estimated 1 million new cases occur each year in the United States, and about 6% of patients experience a second episode of HZ within 8 years.^7,8 In immunocompromised patients, the incidence of HZ is 2 to 10 times higher than in the general population.⁹

The incidence of HZ has been increasing for reasons that are unclear. After varicella vaccine was introduced into the routine childhood immunization schedule in 1995, it was hypothesized that the resultant decrease in primary varicella infections would remove a natural source of immune boosting and cause an increase in HZ incidence for up to 20 years.¹⁰ However, recent studies demonstrate that the observed increase in HZ incidence actually predates the introduction of varicella vaccine,^11–13 and the widespread use of varicella vaccine has not resulted in an increase in the incidence of HZ.¹⁴

Other potential explanations for the rise in reported incidence include increasing awareness among patients, who might previously not have sought care and among physicians, who may be more likely to make the diagnosis. Advertisement of new treatments for HZ, including gabapentin and capsaicin, probably began to increase awareness in the 1990s, as did promotion of the HZ vaccine after its licensure in 2006.

HZ can occur in people who have been vaccinated against varicella due to reactivation of the vaccine-strain virus, but the risk is lower than after infection with wild-type varicella.¹⁵ Given that the varicella vaccine has been routinely used in children for only 20 years, the long-term effect of varicella vaccination on the incidence of HZ in elderly people is unknown.

Serious complications

HZ can cause rare but serious complications including encephalitis, herpes ophthalmicus, herpes oticus, myelitis, and retinitis.¹ These can lead to long-term disability including unilateral blindness and deafness.

The most common and debilitating complication is postherpetic neuralgia, a persistent pain lasting at least 3 months, with a mean duration of 3.3 years and sometimes as long as 10 years.¹⁶ Postherpetic neuralgia occurs in 8% to 32% of patients after acute HZ,⁴ and the incidence increases with age, being most common after age 70. The chronic pain of postherpetic neuralgia has a significant adverse impact on patients’ quality of life, including physical disability and emotional distress.¹⁷ Some pain is intense, and anecdotal reports of patients committing suicide were included in the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations regarding herpes zoster vaccine.¹⁸

HZ and its complications also impose a substantial economic burden on society.¹⁹ In a population-based study, the mean direct medical costs of HZ ranged from $620 to $1,160 (2015 dollars) depending on age,²⁰ and the mean costs of postherpetic neuralgia were 2 to 5 times higher than that.^20–22 Immunocompromised patients had costs 2 to 3 times higher than those of immunocompetent adults.²³ In addition, for employed patients, HZ resulted in an average loss of 32 hours of work due to absenteeism and 84 hours due to presenteeism (ie, working while sick and therefore suboptimally).²⁴

Assuming there are 1 million cases of HZ each year, if 8% to 32% of patients go on to develop postherpetic neuralgia, that would translate into approximately $1 to $2 billion in direct medical costs. With 60% of adult patients working,²⁵ at an average wage of $23.23 per hour,²⁶ HZ illness could be responsible for another $1.6 billion in lost productivity.

EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF HZ VACCINE

In 2006, the FDA approved the live-attenuated Oka strain VZV vaccine for prevention of HZ and postherpetic neuralgia in adults age 60 and older based on findings from the Shingles Prevention Study (SPS).²⁷

The Shingles Prevention Study

This multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial²⁷ enrolled 38,546 immunocompetent persons age 60 and older. Subjects in the intervention group received a single dose of live-attenuated vaccine, and all participants were followed for up to 4.9 years after vaccination.

HZ occurred in 315 (1.636%) of the 19,254 participants in the vaccine group and in 642 (3.336%) of the 19,247 participants in the placebo group, an absolute risk reduction of 1.7%, number needed to treat 59, relative risk reduction 51%, P < .001. Similarly, postherpetic neuralgia occurred in 27 (0.140%) of the 19,254 vaccine recipients and in 80 (0.416%) of the placebo recipients (an absolute risk reduction of 0.276%, number needed to treat 362, relative risk reduction 66%, P < .001). The investigators calculated that vaccination reduced the  overall burden of illness by 61% (Table 1).

The efficacy against HZ incidence decreased with age,²⁸ but the efficacy against postherpetic neuralgia did not. In addition, vaccine recipients who developed HZ generally had less severe manifestations.

The safety of the vaccine was assessed for all participants in the SPS. In addition, one-sixth of SPS participants were enrolled in a safety substudy. These participants completed a detailed report card regarding all medically important events within the first 42 days. Forty-eight percent of the vaccine group and 17% of the placebo group (P < .05) experienced adverse events, primarily at the injection site. Less than 1% of all local reactions were severe.²⁹ Serious adverse events were rare (< 2%), but occurred significantly more often in the vaccinated group.

Short-Term Persistence Substudy

Short-term efficacy of the live-attenuated vaccine (up to 7 years) was assessed in the Short-Term Persistence Substudy (STPS), which involved 14,270 of the initial participants and reported yearly and overall vaccine efficacy.³⁰ After 5 years, the yearly efficacy against postherpetic neuralgia incidence declined to 32% and was no longer statistically significant. Efficacy against HZ incidence and burden of illness displayed the same pattern. After the end of the STPS, all subjects in the placebo group received vaccination.

Long-Term Persistence Substudy

Those in the intervention group were followed for an additional 4 years in the Long-Term Persistence Substudy (LTPS).³¹ Due to the lack of concurrent controls in the LTPS, the authors used regression models based on historical controls to estimate contemporary population incidence of HZ and postherpetic neuralgia  for comparison.

Efficacy continued to decline over time, and by 10 years after vaccination there was no difference between vaccinated patients and historical controls in the rate of any end point (ie, efficacy declined to zero).

A trial of booster vaccination

Because many patients are vaccinated at age 60, waning immunity could leave them vulnerable to HZ and postherpetic neuralgia by age 70. A potential solution would be to give a booster dose after 10 years.

A recent phase 3 clinical trial of adults age 70 years and older found that a booster dose of live-attenuated vaccine was as safe and immunogenic as an initial dose.³² While antibody responses were similar in the boosted group and the newly vaccinated group, cell-mediated immunity was higher in the boosted group.

Because prevention of HZ is generally via cell-mediated immunity, the booster might be more effective than the initial vaccination, but clinical trials measuring actual cases prevented will be required to prove it. A booster dose is not currently recommended.

A trial of vaccination in adults 50 to 59

In 2011, the FDA extended its approval of HZ vaccine for use in adults ages 50 to 59.³³

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in this age group,³³ the vaccine reduced HZ incidence by almost 70% (absolute risk reduction 0.614%, number needed to treat 156; Table 1), but the severity of HZ cases was not affected. There were too few cases of postherpetic neuralgia to assess the efficacy for this end point. The study followed patients for only 1.5 years after vaccination, so the duration of efficacy is unknown.

As in the older recipients, the vaccine was well tolerated; injection-site reactions and headache were the major adverse effects reported among vaccine recipients.³³

INDICATIONS AND CONTRAINDICATIONS

Although HZ vaccine is licensed for use in adults age 50 and older, the ACIP recommends it only for immunocompetent adults age 60 and older. At this time, the ACIP does not recommend HZ vaccine in those younger than 60 because of the low risk of HZ in this age group.³⁴

Any person age 60 or older should receive a single dose of the live-attenuated HZ vaccine subcutaneously, regardless of past history of HZ.

The vaccine is contraindicated in patients who have a history of allergic reaction to any vaccine component, immunosuppression or immunodeficiency conditions, and pregnancy. Specifically, people who will receive immunosuppressive therapies should have the vaccine at least 14 days before beginning treatment. Antiviral medications such as acyclovir, famciclovir, and valacyclovir should be discontinued at least 24 hours before vaccination and not resumed until 14 days later. Patients taking high-dose corticosteroids for more than 2 weeks should not be vaccinated until at least 1 month after therapy is completed.

In contrast, HZ vaccine is not contraindicated for leukemia patients who are in remission and who have not received chemotherapy or radiation for at least 3 months, or for patients receiving short-term, low-to-moderate dose, topical, intra-articular, bursal, or tendon injections of corticosteroids. Patients on low-dose methotrexate, azathioprine, or 6-mercaptopurine can also receive the vaccine.¹⁸

VACCINATION RATES ARE LOW

Although the vaccine has been recommended since 2008, uptake has been slow. Figure 1 shows the rate of HZ vaccination in adults age 60 and older surveyed in the National Health Interview Survey from 2007 to 2013.³⁵ Eight years after the vaccine was licensed, only 28% of eligible patients had been vaccinated. Assuming the current rate of increase remains constant, it will take 7 more years to reach a 60% coverage rate—the same as for pneumococcal vaccine³⁶—and 18 years to reach universal coverage.

Barriers to vaccination

Several barriers to HZ vaccination might account for the slow uptake.

For the first few years the vaccine was available, the requirement to store it frozen presented an obstacle for some physicians.³⁷ Physicians may also have been discouraged by the cumbersome Medicare reimbursement process because while the administration fee is covered through Medicare Part B, the live­-attenuated vaccine is reimbursed only through Medicare Part D, a benefit that varies by plans. Other barriers to physicians are supply shortages, high up-front costs, and uncertainties regarding the duration of vaccine protection, its safety, and side effects.^38–40

Patient barriers include lack of physician recommendation, lack of familiarity with the vaccine, high out-of-pocket costs, the perception that they are at low risk for HZ, underestimation of the pain associated with HZ and postherpetic neuralgia, and fear of vaccine adverse effects.^39,41,42

Interventions to increase vaccination rates

Certain interventions have been shown to increase vaccination adherence in general and HZ vaccination in particular. In randomized trials involving other vaccines, electronic medical record reminders supporting panel management or nurse-initiated protocols have been proven to increase vaccination rates, but these methods have not been tested for HZ vaccine specifically.^43,44

In an observational study, Chaudhry et al found that the number of HZ vaccinations administered at the Mayo Clinic increased 43% in one practice and 54% in another after the implementation of an electronic alert.⁴⁵ A randomized controlled trial showed that an informational package discussing HZ and the vaccine sent to patients via either their electronic personal health record or traditional mail increased HZ vaccination by almost 3 times.⁴⁶

Pharmacists can also influence vaccination rates. States that provide full immunization privileges to pharmacists have vaccination rates significantly higher than states with restricted or no authorization.⁴⁷

COST-EFFECTIVENESS CONSIDERATIONS

Unlike the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the ACIP does consider cost-effectiveness in their vaccine recommendations. Because of the morbidity associated with HZ and postherpetic neuralgia as well as the economic impact, vaccination is generally considered cost-effective for adults age 60 and older.^48,49

Analyses have demonstrated that cost-effectiveness hinges on 4 factors: initial vaccine efficacy, the duration of efficacy, the age-specific incidence of HZ, and the cost of the vaccine.

For patients ages 50 to 59, the incidence of HZ is low, and because the duration of vaccine efficacy is short even though initial vaccine efficacy is high, vaccination in this age group offers poor value.⁵⁰ At older ages, the incidence of HZ and postherpetic neuralgia rises, making vaccination more cost-effective. After age 60, the vaccine is cost-effective at all ages, although age 70 appears to offer the optimal trade-off between increasing incidence and declining vaccine efficacy.^48,49

For patients who plan to be vaccinated only once, waiting until age 70 would appear to offer the best value.⁵¹ For those who are willing to receive a booster dose, the optimal age for vaccination is unknown, but will likely depend on the effectiveness, cost, and duration of the booster.

A NEW HZ VACCINE

In 2015, GlaxoSmithKline tested a new HZ vaccine containing a single VZV glycoprotein in an AS01_B adjuvant system (HZ/su vaccine).⁵² In a phase 3 randomized trial involving 15,411 immunocompetent persons age 50  and older, a 2-dose schedule of HZ/su vaccine was 97% effective in preventing HZ (Table 1).⁵³ Importantly, the vaccine was equally effective in older patients.

This vaccine also had a high rate of adverse reactions, with 17% of vaccine recipients vs 3% of placebo recipients reporting events that prevented normal everyday activities for at least 1 day. However, the rate of serious adverse reactions was the same in both groups (9%). The company announced that they intended to submit a regulatory application for HZ/su vaccine in the second half of 2016.⁵⁴

Because of its high efficacy, HZ/su vaccine has the potential to change practice, but several issues must be resolved before it can supplant the current vaccine.

First, the AS01B adjuvant is not currently licensed in the United States, so it is unclear if the HZ/su vaccine can get FDA approval.^52,55

Second, there are several questions about the efficacy of the vaccine, including long-term efficacy, efficacy in the elderly, and efficacy in the case of a patient receiving only 1 of the 2 required doses.

Third, the impact of HZ/su vaccine on complications such as postherpetic neuralgia has not been established. The clinical trial (NCT01165229) examining vaccine efficacy against postherpetic neuralgia incidence and other complications in adults age 70 and older has recently been completed and data should be available soon. Given the extremely high efficacy against HZ, it is likely that it will be close to 100% effective against this complication.

Fourth, there is uncertainty as to how the HZ/su vaccine should be used in patients who have already received the live-attenuated vaccine, if it is determined that a booster is necessary.

Finally, the vaccine is not yet priced. Given its superior effectiveness, particularly in older individuals, competitive pricing could dramatically affect the market. How Medicare or other insurers cover the new vaccine will likely influence its acceptance.

HZ VACCINATION OF IMMUNOCOMPROMISED PATIENTS

Immunocompromised patients are at highest risk for developing HZ. Unfortunately, there are currently no HZ vaccines approved for use in this population. The current live-attenuated vaccine has been demonstrated to be safe, well tolerated, and immunogenic in patients age 60 and older who are receiving chronic or maintenance low to moderate doses of corticosteroids.⁵⁶

A clinical trial is being conducted to assess the immunogenicity, clinical effectiveness, and safety of the vaccine in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving antitumor necrosis factor therapy (NCT01967316). Other trials are examining vaccine efficacy and safety in patients with solid organ tumors prior to chemotherapy (NCT02444936) and in patients who will be undergoing living donor kidney transplantation (NCT00940940). Researchers are also investigating the possibility of vaccinating allogeneic stem cell donors before donation in order to protect transplant recipients against HZ (NCT01573182).

ZVHT and HZ/su vaccination in immunocompromised patients

Heat-treated varicella-zoster vaccine (ZVHT) is a potential alternative for immunocompromised patients. A 4-dose regimen has been proven to reduce the risk of HZ in patients receiving autologous hematopoietic-cell transplants for non-Hodgkin or Hodgkin lymphoma.⁵⁷

In another trial, the 4-dose ZVHT was safe and elicited significant VZV-specific T-cell response through 28 days in immunosuppressed patients with solid tumor malignancy, hematologic malignancy, human immunodeficiency virus infection with CD4 counts of 200 cells/mm³ or less, and autologous hematopoietic-cell transplants. The T-cell response was poor in allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplant recipients, however.⁵⁸

Because the HZ/su vaccine does not contain live virus, it seems particularly promising for immunocompromised patients. In phase 1 and 2 studies, a 3-dose regimen has been shown to be safe and immunogenic in hematopoietic-cell transplant recipients and HIV-infected adults with CD4 count higher than 200 cells/mm³.^59,60 A phase 3 trial assessing the efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in autologous hematopoietic-cell transplant recipients is under way (NCT01610414). Changes in recommendations for HZ vaccine in these most vulnerable populations await the results of these studies.

Approximately 20% of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries in the U.S. are discharged to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) for post-acute care,^1,2 and 23.5% of these patients are readmitted within 30 days.³ Because hospital readmissions are costly and associated with worse outcomes,^4,5 30-day readmission rates are considered a quality indicator,⁶ and there are financial penalties for hospitals with higher than expected rates.⁷ As a result, hospitals invest substantial resources in programs to reduce readmissions.^8-10 The SNFs represent an attractive target for readmission reduction efforts, since SNFs contribute a disproportionate share of readmissions.^3,4 Because SNF patients are in a monitored environment with high medication adherence, risk factors for readmission likely differ between patients discharged to SNFs and those sent home. For example, 1 study showed that among heart failure patients with cognitive impairment, those discharged to SNFs had lower readmissions during the first 20 days, likely due to better medication adherence.¹¹ Patients discharged to SNFs generally have more complex illnesses, lower functional status, and higher 1-year mortality than patients discharged to the community.^12,13 Despite this, SNF patients might have infrequent contact with physicians. Federal regulations require only that patients discharged to SNFs need to be seen within 30 days and then at least once every 30 days thereafter.¹⁴ According to the 2014 Office of Inspector General report, one-third of Medicare beneficiaries in SNFs experience adverse events from substandard treatment, inadequate resident monitoring and failure or delay of necessary care, most of which are thought to be preventable.¹⁵

To address this issue, the Cleveland Clinic developed a program called “Connected Care SNF,” in which hospital-employed physicians and advanced practice professionals visit patients in selected SNFs 4 to 5 times per week, for the purpose of reducing preventable readmissions. The aim of this study was to assess whether the program reduced 30-day readmissions, and to identify which patients benefited most from the program.

Setting and Intervention

The Cleveland Clinic main campus is a tertiary academic medical center with 1400 beds and approximately 50,000 admissions per year. In late 2012, the Cleveland Clinic implemented the Connected Care SNF program, wherein Cleveland Clinic physicians regularly visited patients who were discharged from the Cleveland Clinic main campus to 7 regional SNFs. Beginning in December 2012, these 7 high-volume referral SNFs that were not part of the Cleveland Clinic Health System (CCHS) agreed to participate in the program, which focused on reducing avoidable hospital readmissions and delivering quality care (Table 1). The Connected Care team, comprised of 2 geriatricians (1 of whom was also a palliative medicine specialist), 1 internist, 1 family physician, and 5 advanced practice professionals (nurse practitioners and physician assistants), provided medical services at the participating SNFs. These providers aimed to see patients 4 to 5 times per week, were available on site during working hours, and provided telephone coverage at nights and on weekends. All providers had access to hospital electronic medical records and could communicate with the discharging physician and with specialists familiar with the patient as needed. Prior to the admission, providers were informed about patient arrival and, at the time of admission to the SNF, providers reviewed medications and discussed goals of care with patients and their families. In the SNF, providers worked closely with staff members to deliver medications and timely treatment. They also met monthly with multidisciplinary teams for continuous quality improvement and to review outcomes. Patients at Connected Care SNFs who had their own physicians, including most long-stay and some short-stay residents, did not receive the Connected Care intervention. They constituted less than 10% of the patients discharged from Cleveland Clinic main campus.

Study Design and Population

We reviewed administrative and clinical data from a retrospective cohort of patients discharged to SNF from the Cleveland Clinic main campus from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014. We included all patients who were discharged to an SNF during the study period. Our main outcome measure was 30-day all-cause readmissions to any hospital in the Cleveland Clinic Health System (CCHS), including the main campus and 8 regional community hospitals. Study patients were followed until January 30, 2015 to capture 30-day readmissions. According to 2012 Medicare data, of CCHS patients who were readmitted within 30 days, 83% of pneumonia, 81% of major joint replacement, 72% of heart failure and 57% of acute myocardial infarction patients were readmitted to a CCHS facility. As the Cleveland Clinic main campus attracts cardiac patients from a 100+-mile radius, they may be more likely to seek care readmission near home and are not reflective of CCHS patients overall. Because we did not have access to readmissions data from non-CCHS hospitals, we excluded patients who were discharged to SNFs beyond a 25-mile radius from the main campus, where they may be more likely to utilize non-CCHS hospitals for acute hospitalization. We also excluded patients discharged to non-CCHS hospital-based SNFs, which may refer readmissions to their own hospital system. Because the Connected Care program began in December 2012, the years 2011-2012 served as the baseline period. The intervention was conducted at 7 SNFs. All other SNFs within the 25-mile radius were included as controls, except for 3 hospital-based SNFs that would be unlikely to admit patients to CCHS. We compared the change in all-cause 30-day readmission rates after implementation of Connected Care, using all patients discharged to SNFs within 25 miles to control for temporal changes in local readmission rates. Discharge to specific SNFs was determined solely by patient choice.

Data Collection

For each patient, we collected the following data that has been shown to be associated with readmissions:^16-18 demographics (age, race, sex, ZIP code), lab values on discharge (hemoglobin and sodium); hemodialysis status; medicine or surgical service; elective surgery or nonelective surgery; details of the index admission index (diagnosis-related group [DRG], Medicare severity-diagnosis-related groups [MS-DRG] weight, primary diagnosis code; principal procedure code; admission date; discharge date, length of stay, and post-acute care provider); and common comorbidities, as listed in Table 2. We also calculated each patient’s HOSPITAL^19,20 score. The HOSPITAL score was developed to predict risk of preventable 30-day readmissions,¹⁹ but it has also been validated to predict 30-day all-cause readmission rates for patients discharged to SNF.²¹ The model contains 7 elements (hemoglobin, oncology service, sodium, procedure, index type, admissions within the last year, length of stay) (supplemental Table).Patients with a high score (7 or higher) have a 41% chance of readmission, while those with a low score (4 or lower) have only a 15% chance. ²¹ We assessed all cause 30-day readmission status from CCHS administrative data. Observation patients and outpatient same-day surgeries were not considered to be admissions. For patients with multiple admissions, each admission was counted as a separate index hospitalization. Cleveland Clinic’s Institutional Review Board approved the study.

Statistical Analysis

For the 7 intervention SNFs, patient characteristics were summarized as means and standard deviations or frequencies and percentages for the periods of 2011-2012 and 2013-2014, respectively, and the 2 periods were compared using the Student t test or χ² test as appropriate.

Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to model 30-day readmission rates. Since the intervention was implemented in the last quarter of 2012, we examined the difference in readmission rates before and after that time point. The model included the following fixed effects: SNF type (intervention or usual care), time points (quarters of 2011-2014), whether the time is pre- or postintervention (binary), and the 3-way interaction between SNF type, pre- or postintervention and time points, and patient characteristics. The model also contained a Gaussian random effect at the SNF level to account for possible correlations among the outcomes of patients from the same SNF. For each quarter, the mean adjusted readmission rates of 2 types of SNFs were calculated from the fitted mixed models and plotted over time. Furthermore, we compared the mean readmission rates of the 2 groups in the pre- and postintervention periods. Subgroup analyses were performed for medical and surgical patients, and for patients in the low, intermediate and high HOSPITAL score groups.

All analyses were performed using RStudio (Boston, Massachusetts). Statistical significance was established with 2-sided P values less than 0.05.

We identified 119 SNFs within a 25-mile radius of the hospital. Of these, 6 did not receive any referrals. Three non-CCHS hospital-based SNFs were excluded, leaving a total of 110 SNFs in the study sample: 7 intervention SNFs and 103 usual-care SNFs. Between January 2011 and December 2014, there were 23,408 SNF discharges from Cleveland Clinic main campus, including 13,544 who were discharged to study SNFs (Supplemental Figure). Of these, 3334 were discharged to 7 intervention SNFs and 10,210 were discharged to usual care SNFs. Characteristics of patients in both periods appear in Table 2. At baseline, patients in the intervention and control SNFs varied in a number of ways. Patients at intervention SNFs were older (75.6 vs. 70.2 years; P < 0.001), more likely to be African American (45.5% vs. 35.9%; P < 0.001), female (61% vs. 55.4%; P < 0.001) and to be insured by Medicare (85.2% vs. 71.4%; P < 0.001). Both groups had similar proportions of patients with high, intermediate, and low readmission risk as measured by HOSPITAL score. Compared to the 2011-2012 pre-intervention period, during the 2013-2014 intervention period, there were more surgeries (34.3% vs. 41.9%; P < 0.001), more elective surgeries (21.8% vs. 25.5%; P = 0.01), fewer medical patients (65.7% vs. 58.1%; P < 0.001), and an increase in comorbidities, including myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, and liver disease (Table 2).

Table 3 shows adjusted 30-day readmissions rates, before and during the intervention period at the intervention and usual care SNFs. Compared to the pre-intervention period, 30-day all-cause adjusted readmission rates declined in the intervention SNFs (28.1% to 21.7%, P < 0.001), while it increased slightly at control sites (27.1% to 28.5%, P < 0.001). The Figure shows the adjusted 30-day readmission rates by quarter throughout the study period.

In this retrospective study of 4 years of discharges to 110 SNFs, we report on the impact of a Connected Care program, in which a physician visited patients on admission to the SNF and 4 to 5 times per week during their stay. Introduction of the program was followed by a 6.8% absolute reduction in all-cause 30-day readmission rates compared to usual care. The absolute reductions ranged from 4.6% for patients at low risk for readmission to 9.1% for patients at high risk, and medical patients benefited more than surgical patients.

Most studies of interventions to reduce hospital readmissions have focused on patients discharged to the community setting.^7-9 Interventions have centered on discharge planning, medication reconciliation, and close follow-up to assess for medication adherence and early signs of deterioration. Because patients in SNFs have their medications administered by staff and are under frequent surveillance, such interventions are unlikely to be helpful in this population. We found no studies that focus on short-stay or skilled patients discharged to SNF. Two studies have demonstrated that interventions can reduce hospitalization from nursing homes.^22,23 Neither study included readmissions. The Evercare model consisted of nurse practitioners providing active primary care services within the nursing home, as well as offering incentive payments to nursing homes for not hospitalizing patients.²² During a 2-year period, long term residents who enrolled in Evercare had an almost 50% reduction in incident hospitalizations compared to those who did not.²² INTERACT II was a quality improvement intervention that provided tools, education, and strategies to help identify and manage acute conditions proactively.²³ In 25 nursing homes employing INTERACT II, there was a 17% reduction in self-reported hospital admissions during the 6-month project, with higher rates of reduction among nursing homes rated as more engaged in the process.²³ Although nursing homes may serve some short-stay or skilled patients, they generally serve long-term populations, and studies have shown that short-stay patients are at higher risk for 30-day readmissions.²⁴

There are a number of reasons that short-term SNF patients are at higher risk for readmission. Although prior to admission, they were considered hospital level of care and received a physician visit daily, on transfer to the SNF, relatively little medical care is available. Current federal regulations regarding physician services at a SNF require the resident to be seen by a physician at least once every 30 days for the first 90 days after admission, and at least once every 60 days thereafter.²⁵

The Connected Care program physicians provided a smooth transition of care from hospital to SNF as well as frequent reassessment. Physicians were alerted prior to hospital discharge and performed an initial comprehensive visit generally on the day of admission to the SNF and always within 48 hours. The initial evaluation is important because miscommunication during the handoff from hospital to SNF may result in incorrect medication regimens or inaccurate assessments. By performing prompt medication reconciliation and periodic reassessments of a patient’s medical condition, the Connected Care providers recreate some of the essential elements of successful outpatient readmissions prevention programs.

They also worked together with each SNF’s interdisciplinary team to deliver quality care. There were monthly meetings at each participating Connected Care SNF. Physicians reviewed monthly 30-day readmissions and performed root-cause analysis. When they discovered challenges to timely medication and treatment delivery during daily rounds, they provided in-services to SNF nurses.

In addition, Connected Care providers discussed goals of care—something that is often overlooked on admission to a SNF. This is particularly important because patients with chronic illnesses who are discharged to SNF often have poor prognoses. For example, Medicare patients with heart failure who are discharged to SNFs have 1-year mortality in excess of 50%.¹³ By implementing a plan of care consistent with patient and family goals, inappropriate readmissions for terminal patients may be avoided.

Reducing readmissions is important for hospitals because under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, hospitals now face substantial penalties for higher than expected readmissions rates. Hospitals involved in bundled payments or other total cost-of-care arrangements have additional incentive to avoid readmissions. Beginning in 2019, SNFs will also receive incentive payments based on their 30-day all-cause hospital readmissions as part of the Skilled Nursing Facility Value-Based Purchasing program.²⁵ The Connected Care model offers 1 means of achieving this goal through partnership between hospitals and SNFs.

Our study has several limitations. First, our study was observational in nature, so the observed reduction in readmissions could have been due to temporal trends unrelated to the intervention. However, no significant reduction was noted during the same time period in other area SNFs. There was also little change in the characteristics of patients admitted to the intervention SNFs. Importantly, the HOSPITAL score, which can predict 30-day readmission rates,²⁰ did not change throughout the study period. Second, the results reflect patients discharged from a single hospital and may not be generalizable to other geographic areas. However, because the program included 7 SNFs, we believe it could be reproduced in other settings. Third, our readmissions measure included only those patients who returned to a CCHS facility. Although we may have missed some readmissions to other hospital systems, such leakage is uncommon—more than 80% of CCHS patients are readmitted to CCHS facilities—and would be unlikely to differ across the short duration of the study. Finally, at the intervention SNFs, most long-stay and some short-stay residents did not receive the Connected Care intervention because they were cared for by their own physicians who did not participate in Connected Care. Had these patients’ readmissions been excluded from our results, the intervention might appear even more effective.

CONCLUSION

A Connected Care intervention reduced 30-day readmission rates among patients discharged to SNFs from a tertiary academic center. While all subgroups had substantial reductions in readmissions following the implementation of the intervention, patients who are at the highest risk of readmission benefited the most. Further study is necessary to know whether Connected Care can be reproduced in other health care systems and whether it reduces overall costs.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Michael Felver, MD, and teams for their clinical care of patients; Michael Felver, MD, William Zafirau, MD, Dan Blechschmid, MHA, and Kathy Brezine, and Seth Vilensky, MBA, for their administrative support; and Brad Souder, MPT, for assistance with data collection.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

Approximately 20% of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries in the U.S. are discharged to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) for post-acute care,^1,2 and 23.5% of these patients are readmitted within 30 days.³ Because hospital readmissions are costly and associated with worse outcomes,^4,5 30-day readmission rates are considered a quality indicator,⁶ and there are financial penalties for hospitals with higher than expected rates.⁷ As a result, hospitals invest substantial resources in programs to reduce readmissions.^8-10 The SNFs represent an attractive target for readmission reduction efforts, since SNFs contribute a disproportionate share of readmissions.^3,4 Because SNF patients are in a monitored environment with high medication adherence, risk factors for readmission likely differ between patients discharged to SNFs and those sent home. For example, 1 study showed that among heart failure patients with cognitive impairment, those discharged to SNFs had lower readmissions during the first 20 days, likely due to better medication adherence.¹¹ Patients discharged to SNFs generally have more complex illnesses, lower functional status, and higher 1-year mortality than patients discharged to the community.^12,13 Despite this, SNF patients might have infrequent contact with physicians. Federal regulations require only that patients discharged to SNFs need to be seen within 30 days and then at least once every 30 days thereafter.¹⁴ According to the 2014 Office of Inspector General report, one-third of Medicare beneficiaries in SNFs experience adverse events from substandard treatment, inadequate resident monitoring and failure or delay of necessary care, most of which are thought to be preventable.¹⁵

To address this issue, the Cleveland Clinic developed a program called “Connected Care SNF,” in which hospital-employed physicians and advanced practice professionals visit patients in selected SNFs 4 to 5 times per week, for the purpose of reducing preventable readmissions. The aim of this study was to assess whether the program reduced 30-day readmissions, and to identify which patients benefited most from the program.

Setting and Intervention

The Cleveland Clinic main campus is a tertiary academic medical center with 1400 beds and approximately 50,000 admissions per year. In late 2012, the Cleveland Clinic implemented the Connected Care SNF program, wherein Cleveland Clinic physicians regularly visited patients who were discharged from the Cleveland Clinic main campus to 7 regional SNFs. Beginning in December 2012, these 7 high-volume referral SNFs that were not part of the Cleveland Clinic Health System (CCHS) agreed to participate in the program, which focused on reducing avoidable hospital readmissions and delivering quality care (Table 1). The Connected Care team, comprised of 2 geriatricians (1 of whom was also a palliative medicine specialist), 1 internist, 1 family physician, and 5 advanced practice professionals (nurse practitioners and physician assistants), provided medical services at the participating SNFs. These providers aimed to see patients 4 to 5 times per week, were available on site during working hours, and provided telephone coverage at nights and on weekends. All providers had access to hospital electronic medical records and could communicate with the discharging physician and with specialists familiar with the patient as needed. Prior to the admission, providers were informed about patient arrival and, at the time of admission to the SNF, providers reviewed medications and discussed goals of care with patients and their families. In the SNF, providers worked closely with staff members to deliver medications and timely treatment. They also met monthly with multidisciplinary teams for continuous quality improvement and to review outcomes. Patients at Connected Care SNFs who had their own physicians, including most long-stay and some short-stay residents, did not receive the Connected Care intervention. They constituted less than 10% of the patients discharged from Cleveland Clinic main campus.

Study Design and Population

We reviewed administrative and clinical data from a retrospective cohort of patients discharged to SNF from the Cleveland Clinic main campus from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014. We included all patients who were discharged to an SNF during the study period. Our main outcome measure was 30-day all-cause readmissions to any hospital in the Cleveland Clinic Health System (CCHS), including the main campus and 8 regional community hospitals. Study patients were followed until January 30, 2015 to capture 30-day readmissions. According to 2012 Medicare data, of CCHS patients who were readmitted within 30 days, 83% of pneumonia, 81% of major joint replacement, 72% of heart failure and 57% of acute myocardial infarction patients were readmitted to a CCHS facility. As the Cleveland Clinic main campus attracts cardiac patients from a 100+-mile radius, they may be more likely to seek care readmission near home and are not reflective of CCHS patients overall. Because we did not have access to readmissions data from non-CCHS hospitals, we excluded patients who were discharged to SNFs beyond a 25-mile radius from the main campus, where they may be more likely to utilize non-CCHS hospitals for acute hospitalization. We also excluded patients discharged to non-CCHS hospital-based SNFs, which may refer readmissions to their own hospital system. Because the Connected Care program began in December 2012, the years 2011-2012 served as the baseline period. The intervention was conducted at 7 SNFs. All other SNFs within the 25-mile radius were included as controls, except for 3 hospital-based SNFs that would be unlikely to admit patients to CCHS. We compared the change in all-cause 30-day readmission rates after implementation of Connected Care, using all patients discharged to SNFs within 25 miles to control for temporal changes in local readmission rates. Discharge to specific SNFs was determined solely by patient choice.

Data Collection

For each patient, we collected the following data that has been shown to be associated with readmissions:^16-18 demographics (age, race, sex, ZIP code), lab values on discharge (hemoglobin and sodium); hemodialysis status; medicine or surgical service; elective surgery or nonelective surgery; details of the index admission index (diagnosis-related group [DRG], Medicare severity-diagnosis-related groups [MS-DRG] weight, primary diagnosis code; principal procedure code; admission date; discharge date, length of stay, and post-acute care provider); and common comorbidities, as listed in Table 2. We also calculated each patient’s HOSPITAL^19,20 score. The HOSPITAL score was developed to predict risk of preventable 30-day readmissions,¹⁹ but it has also been validated to predict 30-day all-cause readmission rates for patients discharged to SNF.²¹ The model contains 7 elements (hemoglobin, oncology service, sodium, procedure, index type, admissions within the last year, length of stay) (supplemental Table).Patients with a high score (7 or higher) have a 41% chance of readmission, while those with a low score (4 or lower) have only a 15% chance. ²¹ We assessed all cause 30-day readmission status from CCHS administrative data. Observation patients and outpatient same-day surgeries were not considered to be admissions. For patients with multiple admissions, each admission was counted as a separate index hospitalization. Cleveland Clinic’s Institutional Review Board approved the study.

Statistical Analysis

For the 7 intervention SNFs, patient characteristics were summarized as means and standard deviations or frequencies and percentages for the periods of 2011-2012 and 2013-2014, respectively, and the 2 periods were compared using the Student t test or χ² test as appropriate.

Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to model 30-day readmission rates. Since the intervention was implemented in the last quarter of 2012, we examined the difference in readmission rates before and after that time point. The model included the following fixed effects: SNF type (intervention or usual care), time points (quarters of 2011-2014), whether the time is pre- or postintervention (binary), and the 3-way interaction between SNF type, pre- or postintervention and time points, and patient characteristics. The model also contained a Gaussian random effect at the SNF level to account for possible correlations among the outcomes of patients from the same SNF. For each quarter, the mean adjusted readmission rates of 2 types of SNFs were calculated from the fitted mixed models and plotted over time. Furthermore, we compared the mean readmission rates of the 2 groups in the pre- and postintervention periods. Subgroup analyses were performed for medical and surgical patients, and for patients in the low, intermediate and high HOSPITAL score groups.

All analyses were performed using RStudio (Boston, Massachusetts). Statistical significance was established with 2-sided P values less than 0.05.

We identified 119 SNFs within a 25-mile radius of the hospital. Of these, 6 did not receive any referrals. Three non-CCHS hospital-based SNFs were excluded, leaving a total of 110 SNFs in the study sample: 7 intervention SNFs and 103 usual-care SNFs. Between January 2011 and December 2014, there were 23,408 SNF discharges from Cleveland Clinic main campus, including 13,544 who were discharged to study SNFs (Supplemental Figure). Of these, 3334 were discharged to 7 intervention SNFs and 10,210 were discharged to usual care SNFs. Characteristics of patients in both periods appear in Table 2. At baseline, patients in the intervention and control SNFs varied in a number of ways. Patients at intervention SNFs were older (75.6 vs. 70.2 years; P < 0.001), more likely to be African American (45.5% vs. 35.9%; P < 0.001), female (61% vs. 55.4%; P < 0.001) and to be insured by Medicare (85.2% vs. 71.4%; P < 0.001). Both groups had similar proportions of patients with high, intermediate, and low readmission risk as measured by HOSPITAL score. Compared to the 2011-2012 pre-intervention period, during the 2013-2014 intervention period, there were more surgeries (34.3% vs. 41.9%; P < 0.001), more elective surgeries (21.8% vs. 25.5%; P = 0.01), fewer medical patients (65.7% vs. 58.1%; P < 0.001), and an increase in comorbidities, including myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, and liver disease (Table 2).

Table 3 shows adjusted 30-day readmissions rates, before and during the intervention period at the intervention and usual care SNFs. Compared to the pre-intervention period, 30-day all-cause adjusted readmission rates declined in the intervention SNFs (28.1% to 21.7%, P < 0.001), while it increased slightly at control sites (27.1% to 28.5%, P < 0.001). The Figure shows the adjusted 30-day readmission rates by quarter throughout the study period.

In this retrospective study of 4 years of discharges to 110 SNFs, we report on the impact of a Connected Care program, in which a physician visited patients on admission to the SNF and 4 to 5 times per week during their stay. Introduction of the program was followed by a 6.8% absolute reduction in all-cause 30-day readmission rates compared to usual care. The absolute reductions ranged from 4.6% for patients at low risk for readmission to 9.1% for patients at high risk, and medical patients benefited more than surgical patients.

Most studies of interventions to reduce hospital readmissions have focused on patients discharged to the community setting.^7-9 Interventions have centered on discharge planning, medication reconciliation, and close follow-up to assess for medication adherence and early signs of deterioration. Because patients in SNFs have their medications administered by staff and are under frequent surveillance, such interventions are unlikely to be helpful in this population. We found no studies that focus on short-stay or skilled patients discharged to SNF. Two studies have demonstrated that interventions can reduce hospitalization from nursing homes.^22,23 Neither study included readmissions. The Evercare model consisted of nurse practitioners providing active primary care services within the nursing home, as well as offering incentive payments to nursing homes for not hospitalizing patients.²² During a 2-year period, long term residents who enrolled in Evercare had an almost 50% reduction in incident hospitalizations compared to those who did not.²² INTERACT II was a quality improvement intervention that provided tools, education, and strategies to help identify and manage acute conditions proactively.²³ In 25 nursing homes employing INTERACT II, there was a 17% reduction in self-reported hospital admissions during the 6-month project, with higher rates of reduction among nursing homes rated as more engaged in the process.²³ Although nursing homes may serve some short-stay or skilled patients, they generally serve long-term populations, and studies have shown that short-stay patients are at higher risk for 30-day readmissions.²⁴

There are a number of reasons that short-term SNF patients are at higher risk for readmission. Although prior to admission, they were considered hospital level of care and received a physician visit daily, on transfer to the SNF, relatively little medical care is available. Current federal regulations regarding physician services at a SNF require the resident to be seen by a physician at least once every 30 days for the first 90 days after admission, and at least once every 60 days thereafter.²⁵

The Connected Care program physicians provided a smooth transition of care from hospital to SNF as well as frequent reassessment. Physicians were alerted prior to hospital discharge and performed an initial comprehensive visit generally on the day of admission to the SNF and always within 48 hours. The initial evaluation is important because miscommunication during the handoff from hospital to SNF may result in incorrect medication regimens or inaccurate assessments. By performing prompt medication reconciliation and periodic reassessments of a patient’s medical condition, the Connected Care providers recreate some of the essential elements of successful outpatient readmissions prevention programs.

They also worked together with each SNF’s interdisciplinary team to deliver quality care. There were monthly meetings at each participating Connected Care SNF. Physicians reviewed monthly 30-day readmissions and performed root-cause analysis. When they discovered challenges to timely medication and treatment delivery during daily rounds, they provided in-services to SNF nurses.

In addition, Connected Care providers discussed goals of care—something that is often overlooked on admission to a SNF. This is particularly important because patients with chronic illnesses who are discharged to SNF often have poor prognoses. For example, Medicare patients with heart failure who are discharged to SNFs have 1-year mortality in excess of 50%.¹³ By implementing a plan of care consistent with patient and family goals, inappropriate readmissions for terminal patients may be avoided.

Reducing readmissions is important for hospitals because under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, hospitals now face substantial penalties for higher than expected readmissions rates. Hospitals involved in bundled payments or other total cost-of-care arrangements have additional incentive to avoid readmissions. Beginning in 2019, SNFs will also receive incentive payments based on their 30-day all-cause hospital readmissions as part of the Skilled Nursing Facility Value-Based Purchasing program.²⁵ The Connected Care model offers 1 means of achieving this goal through partnership between hospitals and SNFs.

Our study has several limitations. First, our study was observational in nature, so the observed reduction in readmissions could have been due to temporal trends unrelated to the intervention. However, no significant reduction was noted during the same time period in other area SNFs. There was also little change in the characteristics of patients admitted to the intervention SNFs. Importantly, the HOSPITAL score, which can predict 30-day readmission rates,²⁰ did not change throughout the study period. Second, the results reflect patients discharged from a single hospital and may not be generalizable to other geographic areas. However, because the program included 7 SNFs, we believe it could be reproduced in other settings. Third, our readmissions measure included only those patients who returned to a CCHS facility. Although we may have missed some readmissions to other hospital systems, such leakage is uncommon—more than 80% of CCHS patients are readmitted to CCHS facilities—and would be unlikely to differ across the short duration of the study. Finally, at the intervention SNFs, most long-stay and some short-stay residents did not receive the Connected Care intervention because they were cared for by their own physicians who did not participate in Connected Care. Had these patients’ readmissions been excluded from our results, the intervention might appear even more effective.

CONCLUSION

A Connected Care intervention reduced 30-day readmission rates among patients discharged to SNFs from a tertiary academic center. While all subgroups had substantial reductions in readmissions following the implementation of the intervention, patients who are at the highest risk of readmission benefited the most. Further study is necessary to know whether Connected Care can be reproduced in other health care systems and whether it reduces overall costs.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Michael Felver, MD, and teams for their clinical care of patients; Michael Felver, MD, William Zafirau, MD, Dan Blechschmid, MHA, and Kathy Brezine, and Seth Vilensky, MBA, for their administrative support; and Brad Souder, MPT, for assistance with data collection.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

Approximately 20% of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries in the U.S. are discharged to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) for post-acute care,^1,2 and 23.5% of these patients are readmitted within 30 days.³ Because hospital readmissions are costly and associated with worse outcomes,^4,5 30-day readmission rates are considered a quality indicator,⁶ and there are financial penalties for hospitals with higher than expected rates.⁷ As a result, hospitals invest substantial resources in programs to reduce readmissions.^8-10 The SNFs represent an attractive target for readmission reduction efforts, since SNFs contribute a disproportionate share of readmissions.^3,4 Because SNF patients are in a monitored environment with high medication adherence, risk factors for readmission likely differ between patients discharged to SNFs and those sent home. For example, 1 study showed that among heart failure patients with cognitive impairment, those discharged to SNFs had lower readmissions during the first 20 days, likely due to better medication adherence.¹¹ Patients discharged to SNFs generally have more complex illnesses, lower functional status, and higher 1-year mortality than patients discharged to the community.^12,13 Despite this, SNF patients might have infrequent contact with physicians. Federal regulations require only that patients discharged to SNFs need to be seen within 30 days and then at least once every 30 days thereafter.¹⁴ According to the 2014 Office of Inspector General report, one-third of Medicare beneficiaries in SNFs experience adverse events from substandard treatment, inadequate resident monitoring and failure or delay of necessary care, most of which are thought to be preventable.¹⁵

To address this issue, the Cleveland Clinic developed a program called “Connected Care SNF,” in which hospital-employed physicians and advanced practice professionals visit patients in selected SNFs 4 to 5 times per week, for the purpose of reducing preventable readmissions. The aim of this study was to assess whether the program reduced 30-day readmissions, and to identify which patients benefited most from the program.

Setting and Intervention

The Cleveland Clinic main campus is a tertiary academic medical center with 1400 beds and approximately 50,000 admissions per year. In late 2012, the Cleveland Clinic implemented the Connected Care SNF program, wherein Cleveland Clinic physicians regularly visited patients who were discharged from the Cleveland Clinic main campus to 7 regional SNFs. Beginning in December 2012, these 7 high-volume referral SNFs that were not part of the Cleveland Clinic Health System (CCHS) agreed to participate in the program, which focused on reducing avoidable hospital readmissions and delivering quality care (Table 1). The Connected Care team, comprised of 2 geriatricians (1 of whom was also a palliative medicine specialist), 1 internist, 1 family physician, and 5 advanced practice professionals (nurse practitioners and physician assistants), provided medical services at the participating SNFs. These providers aimed to see patients 4 to 5 times per week, were available on site during working hours, and provided telephone coverage at nights and on weekends. All providers had access to hospital electronic medical records and could communicate with the discharging physician and with specialists familiar with the patient as needed. Prior to the admission, providers were informed about patient arrival and, at the time of admission to the SNF, providers reviewed medications and discussed goals of care with patients and their families. In the SNF, providers worked closely with staff members to deliver medications and timely treatment. They also met monthly with multidisciplinary teams for continuous quality improvement and to review outcomes. Patients at Connected Care SNFs who had their own physicians, including most long-stay and some short-stay residents, did not receive the Connected Care intervention. They constituted less than 10% of the patients discharged from Cleveland Clinic main campus.

Study Design and Population

We reviewed administrative and clinical data from a retrospective cohort of patients discharged to SNF from the Cleveland Clinic main campus from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014. We included all patients who were discharged to an SNF during the study period. Our main outcome measure was 30-day all-cause readmissions to any hospital in the Cleveland Clinic Health System (CCHS), including the main campus and 8 regional community hospitals. Study patients were followed until January 30, 2015 to capture 30-day readmissions. According to 2012 Medicare data, of CCHS patients who were readmitted within 30 days, 83% of pneumonia, 81% of major joint replacement, 72% of heart failure and 57% of acute myocardial infarction patients were readmitted to a CCHS facility. As the Cleveland Clinic main campus attracts cardiac patients from a 100+-mile radius, they may be more likely to seek care readmission near home and are not reflective of CCHS patients overall. Because we did not have access to readmissions data from non-CCHS hospitals, we excluded patients who were discharged to SNFs beyond a 25-mile radius from the main campus, where they may be more likely to utilize non-CCHS hospitals for acute hospitalization. We also excluded patients discharged to non-CCHS hospital-based SNFs, which may refer readmissions to their own hospital system. Because the Connected Care program began in December 2012, the years 2011-2012 served as the baseline period. The intervention was conducted at 7 SNFs. All other SNFs within the 25-mile radius were included as controls, except for 3 hospital-based SNFs that would be unlikely to admit patients to CCHS. We compared the change in all-cause 30-day readmission rates after implementation of Connected Care, using all patients discharged to SNFs within 25 miles to control for temporal changes in local readmission rates. Discharge to specific SNFs was determined solely by patient choice.

Data Collection

For each patient, we collected the following data that has been shown to be associated with readmissions:^16-18 demographics (age, race, sex, ZIP code), lab values on discharge (hemoglobin and sodium); hemodialysis status; medicine or surgical service; elective surgery or nonelective surgery; details of the index admission index (diagnosis-related group [DRG], Medicare severity-diagnosis-related groups [MS-DRG] weight, primary diagnosis code; principal procedure code; admission date; discharge date, length of stay, and post-acute care provider); and common comorbidities, as listed in Table 2. We also calculated each patient’s HOSPITAL^19,20 score. The HOSPITAL score was developed to predict risk of preventable 30-day readmissions,¹⁹ but it has also been validated to predict 30-day all-cause readmission rates for patients discharged to SNF.²¹ The model contains 7 elements (hemoglobin, oncology service, sodium, procedure, index type, admissions within the last year, length of stay) (supplemental Table).Patients with a high score (7 or higher) have a 41% chance of readmission, while those with a low score (4 or lower) have only a 15% chance. ²¹ We assessed all cause 30-day readmission status from CCHS administrative data. Observation patients and outpatient same-day surgeries were not considered to be admissions. For patients with multiple admissions, each admission was counted as a separate index hospitalization. Cleveland Clinic’s Institutional Review Board approved the study.

Statistical Analysis

For the 7 intervention SNFs, patient characteristics were summarized as means and standard deviations or frequencies and percentages for the periods of 2011-2012 and 2013-2014, respectively, and the 2 periods were compared using the Student t test or χ² test as appropriate.

Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to model 30-day readmission rates. Since the intervention was implemented in the last quarter of 2012, we examined the difference in readmission rates before and after that time point. The model included the following fixed effects: SNF type (intervention or usual care), time points (quarters of 2011-2014), whether the time is pre- or postintervention (binary), and the 3-way interaction between SNF type, pre- or postintervention and time points, and patient characteristics. The model also contained a Gaussian random effect at the SNF level to account for possible correlations among the outcomes of patients from the same SNF. For each quarter, the mean adjusted readmission rates of 2 types of SNFs were calculated from the fitted mixed models and plotted over time. Furthermore, we compared the mean readmission rates of the 2 groups in the pre- and postintervention periods. Subgroup analyses were performed for medical and surgical patients, and for patients in the low, intermediate and high HOSPITAL score groups.

All analyses were performed using RStudio (Boston, Massachusetts). Statistical significance was established with 2-sided P values less than 0.05.

We identified 119 SNFs within a 25-mile radius of the hospital. Of these, 6 did not receive any referrals. Three non-CCHS hospital-based SNFs were excluded, leaving a total of 110 SNFs in the study sample: 7 intervention SNFs and 103 usual-care SNFs. Between January 2011 and December 2014, there were 23,408 SNF discharges from Cleveland Clinic main campus, including 13,544 who were discharged to study SNFs (Supplemental Figure). Of these, 3334 were discharged to 7 intervention SNFs and 10,210 were discharged to usual care SNFs. Characteristics of patients in both periods appear in Table 2. At baseline, patients in the intervention and control SNFs varied in a number of ways. Patients at intervention SNFs were older (75.6 vs. 70.2 years; P < 0.001), more likely to be African American (45.5% vs. 35.9%; P < 0.001), female (61% vs. 55.4%; P < 0.001) and to be insured by Medicare (85.2% vs. 71.4%; P < 0.001). Both groups had similar proportions of patients with high, intermediate, and low readmission risk as measured by HOSPITAL score. Compared to the 2011-2012 pre-intervention period, during the 2013-2014 intervention period, there were more surgeries (34.3% vs. 41.9%; P < 0.001), more elective surgeries (21.8% vs. 25.5%; P = 0.01), fewer medical patients (65.7% vs. 58.1%; P < 0.001), and an increase in comorbidities, including myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, and liver disease (Table 2).

Table 3 shows adjusted 30-day readmissions rates, before and during the intervention period at the intervention and usual care SNFs. Compared to the pre-intervention period, 30-day all-cause adjusted readmission rates declined in the intervention SNFs (28.1% to 21.7%, P < 0.001), while it increased slightly at control sites (27.1% to 28.5%, P < 0.001). The Figure shows the adjusted 30-day readmission rates by quarter throughout the study period.

In this retrospective study of 4 years of discharges to 110 SNFs, we report on the impact of a Connected Care program, in which a physician visited patients on admission to the SNF and 4 to 5 times per week during their stay. Introduction of the program was followed by a 6.8% absolute reduction in all-cause 30-day readmission rates compared to usual care. The absolute reductions ranged from 4.6% for patients at low risk for readmission to 9.1% for patients at high risk, and medical patients benefited more than surgical patients.

Most studies of interventions to reduce hospital readmissions have focused on patients discharged to the community setting.^7-9 Interventions have centered on discharge planning, medication reconciliation, and close follow-up to assess for medication adherence and early signs of deterioration. Because patients in SNFs have their medications administered by staff and are under frequent surveillance, such interventions are unlikely to be helpful in this population. We found no studies that focus on short-stay or skilled patients discharged to SNF. Two studies have demonstrated that interventions can reduce hospitalization from nursing homes.^22,23 Neither study included readmissions. The Evercare model consisted of nurse practitioners providing active primary care services within the nursing home, as well as offering incentive payments to nursing homes for not hospitalizing patients.²² During a 2-year period, long term residents who enrolled in Evercare had an almost 50% reduction in incident hospitalizations compared to those who did not.²² INTERACT II was a quality improvement intervention that provided tools, education, and strategies to help identify and manage acute conditions proactively.²³ In 25 nursing homes employing INTERACT II, there was a 17% reduction in self-reported hospital admissions during the 6-month project, with higher rates of reduction among nursing homes rated as more engaged in the process.²³ Although nursing homes may serve some short-stay or skilled patients, they generally serve long-term populations, and studies have shown that short-stay patients are at higher risk for 30-day readmissions.²⁴

There are a number of reasons that short-term SNF patients are at higher risk for readmission. Although prior to admission, they were considered hospital level of care and received a physician visit daily, on transfer to the SNF, relatively little medical care is available. Current federal regulations regarding physician services at a SNF require the resident to be seen by a physician at least once every 30 days for the first 90 days after admission, and at least once every 60 days thereafter.²⁵

The Connected Care program physicians provided a smooth transition of care from hospital to SNF as well as frequent reassessment. Physicians were alerted prior to hospital discharge and performed an initial comprehensive visit generally on the day of admission to the SNF and always within 48 hours. The initial evaluation is important because miscommunication during the handoff from hospital to SNF may result in incorrect medication regimens or inaccurate assessments. By performing prompt medication reconciliation and periodic reassessments of a patient’s medical condition, the Connected Care providers recreate some of the essential elements of successful outpatient readmissions prevention programs.

They also worked together with each SNF’s interdisciplinary team to deliver quality care. There were monthly meetings at each participating Connected Care SNF. Physicians reviewed monthly 30-day readmissions and performed root-cause analysis. When they discovered challenges to timely medication and treatment delivery during daily rounds, they provided in-services to SNF nurses.

In addition, Connected Care providers discussed goals of care—something that is often overlooked on admission to a SNF. This is particularly important because patients with chronic illnesses who are discharged to SNF often have poor prognoses. For example, Medicare patients with heart failure who are discharged to SNFs have 1-year mortality in excess of 50%.¹³ By implementing a plan of care consistent with patient and family goals, inappropriate readmissions for terminal patients may be avoided.

Reducing readmissions is important for hospitals because under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, hospitals now face substantial penalties for higher than expected readmissions rates. Hospitals involved in bundled payments or other total cost-of-care arrangements have additional incentive to avoid readmissions. Beginning in 2019, SNFs will also receive incentive payments based on their 30-day all-cause hospital readmissions as part of the Skilled Nursing Facility Value-Based Purchasing program.²⁵ The Connected Care model offers 1 means of achieving this goal through partnership between hospitals and SNFs.

Our study has several limitations. First, our study was observational in nature, so the observed reduction in readmissions could have been due to temporal trends unrelated to the intervention. However, no significant reduction was noted during the same time period in other area SNFs. There was also little change in the characteristics of patients admitted to the intervention SNFs. Importantly, the HOSPITAL score, which can predict 30-day readmission rates,²⁰ did not change throughout the study period. Second, the results reflect patients discharged from a single hospital and may not be generalizable to other geographic areas. However, because the program included 7 SNFs, we believe it could be reproduced in other settings. Third, our readmissions measure included only those patients who returned to a CCHS facility. Although we may have missed some readmissions to other hospital systems, such leakage is uncommon—more than 80% of CCHS patients are readmitted to CCHS facilities—and would be unlikely to differ across the short duration of the study. Finally, at the intervention SNFs, most long-stay and some short-stay residents did not receive the Connected Care intervention because they were cared for by their own physicians who did not participate in Connected Care. Had these patients’ readmissions been excluded from our results, the intervention might appear even more effective.

CONCLUSION

A Connected Care intervention reduced 30-day readmission rates among patients discharged to SNFs from a tertiary academic center. While all subgroups had substantial reductions in readmissions following the implementation of the intervention, patients who are at the highest risk of readmission benefited the most. Further study is necessary to know whether Connected Care can be reproduced in other health care systems and whether it reduces overall costs.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Michael Felver, MD, and teams for their clinical care of patients; Michael Felver, MD, William Zafirau, MD, Dan Blechschmid, MHA, and Kathy Brezine, and Seth Vilensky, MBA, for their administrative support; and Brad Souder, MPT, for assistance with data collection.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.