New Cardiovascular Medications: Surveying Adoption Trends Among Cardiologists
Varjabedian, L.; Mohammadi, A.; Mohammadi, A.; Vaseghi, Y.
Show abstract
IntroductionThis study investigates factors influencing the adoption of new cardiovascular medications by private practice cardiologists in Las Vegas, focusing on economic, clinical, and informational barriers. Understanding these challenges is critical for improving medication uptake and optimizing patient care. MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted between January 1 and February 1, 2024, targeting private practice cardiologists in Las Vegas. Out of 47 invited participants, 68% completed the questionnaire. The survey evaluated economic barriers, patient considerations, and preferred methods of learning about new treatments. ResultsThe survey revealed that 54% of cardiologists adopt new medications within 2-6 months of approval, while fewer adopt them within 2 months or after 6-12 months. Economic barriers, particularly prior authorization requirements and high patient copays, were the most frequently reported challenges, surpassing concerns about clinical benefits or medication safety. Traditional conferences and professional society events emerged as the preferred sources of information for learning about new treatments, significantly outweighing reliance on digital platforms or pharmaceutical representatives. DiscussionEconomic factors, such as prior authorizations and copays, significantly delay the adoption of new cardiovascular medications. Cardiologists show a strong preference for formal educational resources, such as conferences and professional society events, over pharmaceutical outreach or digital platforms. Addressing these barriers requires streamlining administrative processes, reducing patient copays, and improving access to high-quality educational events. Collaboration between insurers, medical societies, and healthcare providers is essential to overcoming these obstacles and enhancing patient outcomes.
Matching journals
The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Assessment of knowledge and perception of prescribers towards rational medicine use in the Ashanti Region of Ghana 94%
- What matters to patients?: a timely question for Value Based Care 93%
- Factors Associated with Access and Use of PPE during COVID-19: A Cross-sectional Study of Italian Physicians 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Cardiology Services 92%
- OpenSAFELY: impact of national guidance on switching from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in early phase of COVID-19 pandemic in England 92%
- Cardiology researchers' practices and perceived barriers related to open science: an international cross-sectional survey 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Patient-Reported Reasons for Antihypertensive Medication Change: A Quantitative Study Using Social Media 96%
- Health Information Exchanges (HIEs) as Novel Sources for Population-Based Post Marketing Surveillance of Medical Products: A Pilot Study from the FDA Sentinel Innovation Center 92%
- Standardization of drug names in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System: The DiAna dictionary 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Hospitalist perspectives of available tests to monitor volume status in patients with heart failure: a qualitative study 92%
- Evaluation of Self-Directed Learning Activities at King Abdulaziz University: A Qualitative Study of Faculty Perceptions 91%
- Single-Center Hospital and Outpatient Opioid Use for Lower Extremity Arterial Disease 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of Indicators of Reproducibility and Transparency in Published Cardiology Literature 93%
- Evaluation of antithrombotic use and COVID-19 outcomes in a nationwide atrial fibrillation cohort 88%
- Automatic Detection of Cardiac Conditions from Photos of Electrocardiogram (ECG) Captured by Smartphones 87%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.