Increase in lipid-lowering treatment rates among TRICARE beneficiaries: a population-based study

Modafinil and the risk of cardiovascular events: Findings from three US claims databases

PURPOSE

This study examined the potential risk of cardiovascular (CV) events associated with modafinil and the consistency of the risk estimates across databases.

METHODS

A retrospective, inception cohort design of patients who initiated treatment with modafinil between 2006 and 2008 was used in three US health care claims databases. Modafinil users were matched with nonusers. Patients were further divided into two cohorts of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and non-OSA (NOSA) cohorts. Endpoints of interest, including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, CV hospitalizations, and all-cause death, were assessed using incidence rates and Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs), adjusted for potential confounding factors.

RESULTS

The cohorts included a total of 175 524 patients in MarketScan CM; 77 266-in IMS LifeLink; and 8174-in MarketScan Medicaid. No increased risk for MI in the OSA and NOSA cohorts was observed across all three databases. The risks of CV hospitalization in the OSA and NOSA cohorts were not different between the modafinil users and nonusers, except for IMS LifeLink database where the HR was lower than one in the modafinil users compared with the nonusers (HR, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.87). For OSA patients with prior stroke, an adjusted HR of 1.96 (95% CI, 1.02 to 3.76) was observed for stroke among modafinil users compared with nonusers. Among the NOSA, the HRs for all-cause death in the OSA were inconsistent across databases.

CONCLUSIONS

Except for few CV outcomes, applying one common protocol generated consistent risk estimates of CV events following modafinil use across cohorts and databases.

Long-term variability of inflammatory markers and associated factors in a population-based cohort

OBJECTIVES

To investigate long-term variability in serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) and to determine associated risk factors for high-risk inflammatory profiles.

DESIGN

Prospective population-based cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants (N = 1,443) of the Epidemiology of Hearing Loss Study and the Beaver Dam Eye Study, two population-based prospective studies of aging in the same cohort.

MEASUREMENTS

In participants aged 43 to 79 at the initial examination (1988-1990), serum high-sensitivity CRP was measured from three time-points (1988-1990, 1998-2000, 2009-2010), and serum IL-6 was measured from two (1998-2000, 2009-2010).

RESULTS

When IL-6 levels were categorized into tertiles, 50.8% of participants were in the same group 10 years later (weighted kappa (κ) = 0.34). When CRP was categorized into three risk groups, 53.4% of participants were in the same group 10 years later (κ = 0.36), and 32.4% were in the same group at all three examinations (κ = 0.27). IL-6 increased from a geometric mean of 1.54 pg/L to 1.78 pg/L over 10 years, whereas CRP increased from a geometric mean of 1.67 mg/L to 2.25 mg/L over 10 years and then decreased to 1.93 mg/L over the next 10 years. These 10-year decreases in CRP were not observed in those not reporting statin use. Factors associated with long-term higher levels of IL-6 and CRP were older age (IL-6), obesity, smoking, lower physical activity (IL-6), lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (IL-6), and a history of statin (non)use (CRP).

CONCLUSION

Inflammatory marker levels tracked over the long term into older age with within-person increases were observed. Several potentially modifiable risk factors were associated with long-term higher levels of inflammatory markers.

Comparing Medication Adherence Methods in Lipid-Modifying Therapy

Background:

Investigators have employed a number of different methods to calculate adherence estimates for patients taking lipid-modifying therapy (LMT), including measures with different numerator and denominator options. Although at least one method is known to correlate well with cardiovascular outcomes, most have not been evaluated in outcomes studies.

Objectives:

To evaluate different methods for measuring adherence, using LMT as a case example, and to determine whether estimates for adherence differ statistically and/or whether different methods can lead to different conclusions about patient adherence.

Methods:

Adherence ratios were calculated using 8 different methods for 12,448 patients who were in a managed-care system and were considered new starts with statin therapy. The calculated measures were compared and tested for differences. Patients were categorized as adherent by each method, using a threshold of 0.8, and the proportions of patients categorized as adherent were compared for differences between adherence calculation methods.

Results:

Adherence ratios calculated with like observation intervals did not vary substantially, regardless of which method for measuring medication availability was used. Those calculated with different observation intervals had substantial variability. Mean adherence ratios ranged between 0.777 and 0.798 for difference in days' observation intervals; they ranged between 0.618 and 0.630 for the predefined interval. Differences between ratios calculated using these different denominators were statistically significant (p < 0.008). Correlations between ratios were statistically significant for all comparisons (p < 0.001). Correlation coefficients ( r) were 0.64 for comparisons between ratios with different denominators versus 1.0 for comparisons with like denominators. Categorization as adherent or nonadherent differed between the methods for about 20% of patients.

Conclusions:

Significant differences were found to be based on observation period but not on medication availability. Studies of adherence should be interpreted with caution depending on which method is used, and particular interest should be paid to whether the choice of methods is consistent with study objectives and to the observation interval, as different methods may lead to different conclusions about patient adherence. Further research in LMT and other therapeutic areas is needed to determine which methods correlate best with positive patient outcomes, such as reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular events.

Loss of early gains in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment among high-risk patients

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) measurement of <70 mg/dL as a reasonable goal in high-risk patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) or atherosclerotic vascular disease (AVD).

METHODS

This retrospective, cross-sectional study examined LDL-C goal attainment monthly trends from January 1, 2004, to August 31, 2008, in a large, managed-care claims database in the United States. High-risk CHD or AVD patients who had at least one LDL-C test during that time period were included (N = 284,915). Average LDL-C values and percent of patients not achieving LDL-C goal (LDL-C ≥70 mg/dL) were obtained by averaging patient level LDL-C values for each month. A linear trend analysis with first-order autocorrelated errors was conducted.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients treated with lipid-lowering therapy gradually increased from 58.5% in 2004 to 70.5% in 2008. Mean LDL-C values in patients treated with lipid-lowering therapy decreased from 100.4 to 96.4 mg/dL, whereas LDL-C remained relatively constant in untreated patients (114.3 mg/dL). In treated patients, the percentage with LDL-C ≥70 mg/dL decreased from 87.5% in January 2004 to 73.8% in December 2006 (P < .0001), then gradually declined between January 2007 (79.6%) and August 2008 (76.2%; P < .0001). Among untreated patients, 92.9% had LDL-C levels ≥70 mg/dL in January 2004 and 93.0% in August 2008.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the percentage of high-risk patients with CHD or AVD treated with lipid-lowering therapy who achieve LDL-C <70 mg/dL levels has increased since 2004, although a large proportion of these patients still do not meet this goal. Additionally, 1 of 4 high-risk patients otherwise eligible for lipid-lowering therapy remains untreated. These data suggest the need for renewed efforts to support guideline-based LDL-C lowering in high-risk patients.