The Evidence for Pharmacist Care in Outpatients with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims Patients with heart failure (HF) have poor outcomes, including poor quality of life, and high morbidity and mortality. In addition, they have a high medication burden due to the multiple drug therapies now recommended by guidelines. Previous reviews, including studies in hospital settings, provided evidence that pharmacist care improves outcomes in patients with HF. Because most HF is managed outside of hospitals, we aimed to synthesize the evidence for pharmacist care in outpatients with HF. Methods and results We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and integrated the evidence on patient outcomes in a meta-analysis. We found 24 RCTs performed in 10 countries, including 8029 patients. The data revealed consistent improvements in medication adherence (independent of the measuring instrument) and knowledge, physical function, and disease and medication management. Sixteen RCTs were included in meta-analyses. Differences in all-cause mortality (odds ratio (OR) = 0.97 [95% CI, 0.84–1.12], Q-statistic, P = 0.49, I2 = 0%), all-cause hospitalizations (OR = 0.86 [0.73–1.03], Q-statistic, P = 0.01, I2 = 45.5%), and HF hospitalizations (OR = 0.89 [0.77–1.02], Q-statistic, P = 0.11, I2 = 0%) were not statistically significant. We also observed an improvement in the standardized mean difference for generic quality of life of 0.75 ([0.49–1.01], P < 0.01), with no indication of heterogeneity (Q-statistic, P = 0.64; I2 = 0%). Conclusions Results indicate that pharmacist care improves medication adherence and knowledge, symptom control, and some measures of quality of life in outpatients with HF. Given the increasing complexity of guideline-directed medical therapy, pharmacists' unique focus on medication management, titration, adherence, and patient teaching should be considered part of the management strategy for these vulnerable patients.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".