MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158811432 · doi:10.1002/jac5.1450

Pharmacist‐led optimization of heart failure medications: A systematic review

2021· review· en· W3158811432 on OpenAlex
Vivien Cao, Emily Cowley, Sheri L. Koshman, Jenny MacGillivray, M. Sidsworth, Ricky D. Turgeon

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJACCP JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CLINICAL PHARMACY · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of AlbertaAlberta HealthAlberta Health ServicesVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacistMedicineAmbulatoryMEDLINEAmbulatory careMedication therapy managementScope of practiceEjection fractionGuidelineEmergency medicinePsychological interventionSystematic reviewHeart failureIntensive care medicineFamily medicineInternal medicineNursingHealth carePharmacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Medications are a cornerstone of treatment of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, thus pharmacists are valuable members of the multidisciplinary team approach to long‐term patient management. As pharmacists' scope of practice has expanded, growing evidence shows an evolution in pharmacists' roles in the care of patients with HF. To synthesize the literature describing implementation of pharmacist‐led medication titration and clinical assessments on outcomes in ambulatory patients with HF. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials were searched from 2007 to March 18, 2020. English language articles that evaluated implementation of pharmacist‐led medication titration in ambulatory patients with HF. Studies with interventions that involved pharmacists prescribing to initiate, modify, or discontinue medications with independent authority or under a collaborative practice agreement were considered. Ten retrospective studies from 718 identified articles were included. All studies incorporated pharmacist‐led guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT) titration, two with independent pharmacist prescribing in a multidisciplinary HF clinic, and seven in a pharmacist‐only clinic. Patients were referred from both inpatient and outpatient settings and had an average reported range of 1–5.7 visits with pharmacists. While four studies exclusively included patients with HF and ejection fraction below 45%, the mean ejection fraction of all included patients ranged from 20% to 42%. Four studies showed an increased proportion of patients on GDMT or target doses after pharmacist prescribing. Four out of six studies showed a significant decrease in all‐cause hospitalizations and one of two studies reported a significant decrease in all‐cause mortality rate with intervention. This study found that pharmacist‐led medication optimization increased the use of GDMT in ambulatory patients with HF, and may be associated with fewer hospitalizations and deaths. Future randomized controlled trials should evaluate the impact of adding pharmacist‐led HF medication optimization to standard of care on clinical outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.381 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it