Practice-level variation in statin use and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control in the United States: Results from the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry

Hospital-Level Variation in COVID-19 Treatment Among Hospitalized Adults in the United States: A Retrospective Cohort Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize variation in dexamethasone and remdesivir use over time among hospitals.

BACKGROUND

Little is known about hospital-level variation in COVID-19 drug treatments in a large and diverse network in the United States.

METHODS

We selected individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 across 163 hospitals between February 23, 2020 and October 31, 2021 from using the HCA CHARGE, an electronic health record repository from a network of community health care facilities in the United States. We quantified receipt of dexamethasone, remdesivir, and combined use of dexamethasone and remdesivir during the hospital stay. We used 2-level logistic regression models to determine the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) at the hospital level, adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. The ICC shows the proportion of total variation in drug use accounted for by hospitals.

RESULTS

Among 161,667 individuals hospitalized with COVID-19, 73.0% were treated with dexamethasone, 49.1% with remdesivir, and 45.0% with both dexamethasone and remdesivir. The proportion of variation in dexamethasone use was 12.7% (adjusted ICC: 0.127), 8.5% for remdesivir, and 11.3% for combined drug use, indicating low interhospital variation. In the fully adjusted models, between-facility variation in dexamethasone use declined from 34.1% in February-March 2020 to 11.3% in January-March 2021 and then increased to 17.3% in July-October 2021. The variation in remdesivir use remained relatively stable during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

During the first 2 years of the pandemic, there was relatively consistent use of dexamethasone and remdesivir across the hospitals examined. Consistent adoption and implementation of treatment guidelines across the hospitals examined may have led to a decrease in variation in drug usage over time.

Impact of Guideline-Directed Statin Prescriptions on Cardiovascular Outcomes by Race in a Real-World Primary Prevention Cohort

Background

Data on real-world statin prescription in large, private health care networks and impacts on primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) outcomes across race are scarce.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of statin prescription on ASCVD outcomes within and across race in a large, nongovernmental health care system.

Methods

Statin prescription in Black and White patients without ASCVD was evaluated (2013-2019). Guideline-directed statin intensity was defined as at least "moderate" for intermediate and high-risk patients. Statin prescription at index and ASCVD outcomes at follow-up (myocardial infarction/revascularization, stroke, mortality) were assessed via electronic health care records using International Classification of Diseases-9 and 10 codes. Cox regression models, adjusted for CVD risk factors, were used to calculate HRs for association between statin prescription and incident ASCVD events across race.

Results

Among 270,079 patients, 7.6% (n = 20,477) and 92.4% (n = 249,602) identified as Black and White, respectively. Significantly fewer Black patients were prescribed statin therapy than White patients (13.6% vs 19.0%; P < 0.001). At a mean follow-up of 6 years, patients with "no statin" prescription vs guideline-directed statin intensity showed increased ASCVD in Black patients (HR: 1.40 [95% CI: 1.05-1.86]), and White patients (HR: 1.32 [95% CI: 1.21-1.45]; P < 0.05) and all-cause mortality. Intermediate and high-risk Black patients faced a 17% higher risk of mortality compared to White patients. However, the interaction between race and statin prescription was not a significant predictor of incident ASCVD events.

Conclusions

Statins remain underprescribed. Although Black patients received proportionally less statin prescription than White patients, this was not associated with higher risk of mortality in Black patients.

Closing the gap between guidelines and clinical practice for managing dyslipidemia: where are we now?

INTRODUCTION

Despite decades of research clearly illustrating the direct link between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk, LDL-C goal attainment rates are remarkably low in both the primary and secondary prevention settings.

AREAS COVERED

Herein we detail: (1) the low rates of LDL-C goal attainment; (2) despite guidelines clearly outlining indications of use, there is suboptimal initiation, intensification, and persistence of lipid lowering therapy, especially combination therapy; (3) key clinician-related factors contributing to this gap include inconsistent risk assessments, clinical inertia, and barriers to health access; (4) LDL-C reduction is associated with reductions in risk for cardiovascular events. Increasing LDL-C goal attainment rates should be a high public health priority.

EXPERT OPINION

There is an urgent need to rethink dyslipidemia management. Opportunities exist to overcome LDL-C goal attainment barriers, which necessitates a concerted effort from patients, clinicians, health systems, payors, pharmaceutical companies, and public health advocates. LDL-C measurement should be a performance metric for health systems. In addition, upfront use of combination therapy and polypill formulations should be encouraged. Engaging pharmacists to support drug therapy and adherence is crucial. Leveraging telehealth and electronic medical record (EMR) functionalities can enhance these efforts and ensure more effective implementation.

Closing the Gaps in Care of Dyslipidemia: Revolutionizing Management with Digital Health and Innovative Care Models

Although great progress has been made in the diagnostic and treatment options for dyslipidemias, unawareness, underdiagnosis and undertreatment of these disorders remain a significant global health concern. Growth in digital applications and newer models of care provide novel tools to improve the management of chronic conditions such as dyslipidemia. In this review, we discuss the evolving landscape of lipid management in the 21st century, current treatment gaps and possible solutions through digital health and new models of care. Our discussion begins with the history and development of value-based care and the national establishment of quality metrics for various chronic conditions. These concepts on the level of healthcare policy not only inform reimbursements but also define the standard of care. Next, we consider the advances in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk score calculators as well as evolving imaging modalities. The impact and growth of digital health, ranging from telehealth visits to online platforms and mobile applications, will also be explored. We then evaluate the ways in which machine learning and artificial intelligence-driven algorithms are being utilized to address gaps in lipid management. From an organizational perspective, we trace the redesign of medical practices to incorporate a multidisciplinary team model of care, recognizing that atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk is multifaceted and requires a comprehensive approach. Finally, we anticipate the future of dyslipidemia management, assessing the many ways in which atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease burden can be reduced on a population-wide scale.

Inclisiran for the Treatment of Hyperlipidemia and for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction: A Narrative Review

PURPOSE

Inclisiran is a novel nonstatin therapy providing significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as well as improvements in other lipid biomarkers. This review summarizes data from postapproval publications regarding the impact of inclisiran on lipids and cardiovascular risk reduction, as well as its tolerability and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

A search of PubMed for inclisiran was used to identify articles published since its approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Clinical research studies reporting meta-analysis; pooled patient-level trial analyses; cost-effectiveness analyses; new human data; prespecified, post-hoc, or subgroup trial analyses; and clinical trial extensions were included.

FINDINGS

The search identified 153 citations; 16 studies were included. FDA-approval trials, subsequent pooled patient-level trial analyses, and extension studies found that inclisiran, administered with and without maximally tolerated statin therapy, reduced LDL-C by ≈50%, with the reduction sustained for 4 years. Inclisiran appeared to be well tolerated, even long-term, with injection-site reactions being the most common adverse effect. A patient-level pooled analysis of data from Phase III trials suggested that cardiovascular events were reduced with inclisiran versus placebo (7.1% vs 9.4%; odds ratio = 0.74 [95% CI, 0.58-0.94]). Inclisiran is suggested to be cost-effective based the presumed cardiovascular benefit commensurate with LDL-C reduction.

IMPLICATIONS

The cardiovascular benefit and cost-effectiveness of inclisiran are promising, though not definitive. The results of a large-scale study of the effects of inclisiran on cardiovascular outcomes are expected in 2026; until then, the nonstatin therapies primarily prescribed for LDL-C reduction remain proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin (PCSK)-9 inhibitors and ezetimibe. However, inclisiran is a reasonable alternative to, PCSK-9 inhibitors, in patients who struggle with the self-injection of or adherence to PCSK-9 inhibitors as inclisiran maintenance therapy is administered twice yearly by a health care professional.

Patient-, Clinician-, and Institution-level Variation in Inotrope Use for Cardiac Surgery: A Multicenter Observational Analysis

BACKGROUND

Conflicting evidence exists regarding the risks and benefits of inotropic therapies during cardiac surgery, and the extent of variation in clinical practice remains understudied. Therefore, the authors sought to quantify patient-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-related contributions to variation in inotrope use.

METHODS

In this observational study, nonemergent adult cardiac surgeries using cardiopulmonary bypass were reviewed across a multicenter cohort of academic and community hospitals from 2014 to 2019. Patients who were moribund, receiving mechanical circulatory support, or receiving preoperative or home inotropes were excluded. The primary outcome was an inotrope infusion (epinephrine, dobutamine, milrinone, dopamine) administered for greater than 60 consecutive min intraoperatively or ongoing upon transport from the operating room. Institution-, clinician-, and patient-level variance components were studied.

RESULTS

Among 51,085 cases across 611 attending anesthesiologists and 29 hospitals, 27,033 (52.9%) cases received at least one intraoperative inotrope, including 21,796 (42.7%) epinephrine, 6,360 (12.4%) milrinone, 2,000 (3.9%) dobutamine, and 602 (1.2%) dopamine (non-mutually exclusive). Variation in inotrope use was 22.6% attributable to the institution, 6.8% attributable to the primary attending anesthesiologist, and 70.6% attributable to the patient. The adjusted median odds ratio for the same patient receiving inotropes was 1.73 between 2 randomly selected clinicians and 3.55 between 2 randomly selected institutions. Factors most strongly associated with increased likelihood of inotrope use were institutional medical school affiliation (adjusted odds ratio, 6.2; 95% CI, 1.39 to 27.8), heart failure (adjusted odds ratio, 2.60; 95% CI, 2.46 to 2.76), pulmonary circulation disorder (adjusted odds ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.58 to 1.87), loop diuretic home medication (adjusted odds ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.42 to 1.69), Black race (adjusted odds ratio, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.68), and digoxin home medication (adjusted odds ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Variation in inotrope use during cardiac surgery is attributable to the institution and to the clinician, in addition to the patient. Variation across institutions and clinicians suggests a need for future quantitative and qualitative research to understand variation in inotrope use affecting outcomes and develop evidence-based, patient-centered inotrope therapies.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Cardiovascular Event Rates in Statin-Treated Korean Patients with Cardiovascular Disease: Estimates from a Real-World Population Using Electronic Medical Record Data

PURPOSE

To estimate the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events in a real-world population of very high-risk Korean patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke (IS), or symptomatic peripheral artery disease (sPAD), similar to the Further cardiovascular OUtcomes Research with proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 Inhibition in subjects with Elevated Risk (FOURIER) trial population.

METHODS

This retrospective study used the Asan Medical Center Heart Registry database built on electronic medical records (EMR) from 2000 to 2016. Patients with a history of clinically evident atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) with multiple risk factors were followed up for 3 years. The primary endpoint was a composite of MI, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, coronary revascularization, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Among 15,820 patients, the 3-year cumulative incidence of the composite primary endpoint was 15.3% and the 3-year incidence rate was 5.7 (95% CI 5.5-5.9) per 100 person-years. At individual endpoints, the rates of deaths, MI, and IS were 0.4 (0.3-0.4), 0.9 (0.8-0.9), and 0.8 (0.7-0.9), respectively. The risk of the primary endpoint did not differ significantly between recipients of different intensities of statin therapy. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals were only achieved in 24.4% of patients during the first year of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

By analyzing EMR data representing routine practice in Korea, we found that patients with very high-risk ASCVD were at substantial risk of further cardiovascular events in 3 years. Given the observed risk of recurrent events with suboptimal lipid management by statin, additional treatment to control LDL-C might be necessary to reduce the burden of further cardiovascular events for very high-risk ASCVD patients.

Nonadherence to lipid-lowering therapy and strategies to improve adherence in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

Despite the availability of effective therapies that lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, many eligible patients are inadequately treated and their LDL-C levels remain suboptimal. Patient nonadherence to lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) is a major contributor to the failure of LDL-C goal attainment. Several factors have been identified as contributing to LLT nonadherence, including healthcare disparities due to socioeconomic status, age, race, sex, and cost; limited access to healthcare; perceived side effects associated with LLT; health literacy; and the presence of comorbidities. Suboptimal LLT use has also been associated with clinician factors, including failure to identify patients who require LDL-C reassessment, insufficient LDL-C monitoring, and clinical inertia such as a lack of therapy intensification. Several strategies to enhance LLT adherence have been shown to be effective, including the implementation of educational initiatives and tools for both patients and physicians, the use of clinical protocols and algorithms to identify patients at risk and optimize treatment, and improvements in electronic healthcare records. Pharmacy-based programs designed to help patients with prescription refills, including reminders or the use of prescription delivery by mail, have also proven effective. Drugs requiring frequent administration can represent a barrier to treatment adherence; therefore, newer, more effective LLTs with lower frequency of administration and lower potential for polypharmacy may improve patient adherence to LLT. Implementation of strategies to identify patients at risk for LLT nonadherence and the use of flexible tools such as telemedicine to overcome geographical barriers may improve LLT adherence.

Effect of Nudges to Clinicians, Patients, or Both to Increase Statin Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Statins reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, but less than one-half of individuals in America who meet guideline criteria for a statin are actively prescribed this medication.

Objective

To evaluate whether nudges to clinicians, patients, or both increase initiation of statin prescribing during primary care visits.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cluster randomized clinical trial evaluated statin prescribing of 158 clinicians from 28 primary care practices including 4131 patients. The design included a 12-month preintervention period and a 6-month intervention period between October 19, 2019, and April 18, 2021.

Interventions

The usual care group received no interventions. The clinician nudge combined an active choice prompt in the electronic health record during the patient visit and monthly feedback on prescribing patterns compared with peers. The patient nudge was an interactive text message delivered 4 days before the visit. The combined nudge included the clinician and patient nudges.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was initiation of a statin prescription during the visit.

Results

The sample comprised 4131 patients with a mean (SD) age of 65.5 (10.5) years; 2120 (51.3%) were male; 1210 (29.3%) were Black, 106 (2.6%) were Hispanic, 2732 (66.1%) were White, and 83 (2.0%) were of other race or ethnicity, and 933 (22.6%) had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. In unadjusted analyses during the preintervention period, statins were prescribed to 5.6% of patients (105 of 1876) in the usual care group, 4.8% (97 of 2022) in the patient nudge group, 6.0% (104 of 1723) in the clinician nudge group, and 4.7% (82 of 1752) in the combined group. During the intervention, statins were prescribed to 7.3% of patients (75 of 1032) in the usual care group, 8.5% (100 of 1181) in the patient nudge group, 13.0% (128 of 981) in the clinician nudge arm, and 15.5% (145 of 937) in the combined group. In the main adjusted analyses relative to usual care, the clinician nudge significantly increased statin prescribing alone (5.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.4 to 7.8 percentage points; P = .01) and when combined with the patient nudge (7.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 5.1 to 9.1 percentage points; P = .001). The patient nudge alone did not change statin prescribing relative to usual care (0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.8 to 2.5 percentage points; P = .32).

Conclusions and Relevance

Nudges to clinicians with and without a patient nudge significantly increased initiation of a statin prescription during primary care visits. The patient nudge alone was not effective.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04307472.

Inter-Individual Variability in Lipid Response: A Narrative Review

Lipid-lowering guidelines emphasize shared decision-making between clinicians and patients, resulting in patients anticipating the degree of response from diet or drug therapy. Challenging for physicians is understanding the sources of variability complicating their management decisions, which include non-adherence, genetic considerations, additional lipid parameters including lipoprotein (a) levels, and rare systemic responses limiting benefits that result in non-responsiveness to monoclonal antibody injection. In this narrative review, we focus on the variability of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) response to guideline-directed interventions such as statins, ezetimibe, bile acid sequestrants, fibrates, proprotein/convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitors, and LDL-C-lowering diets. We hypothesize that the variability in individual lipid responses is multifactorial. We provide an illustrative model with a check list that can be used to identify factors that may be present in the individual patient.

Guidelines for the management of hyperlipidemia: How can clinicians effectively implement them?

Guidelines support lowering cholesterol to decrease atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk across the entire lifespan with intensive lifestyle intervention, as well as statin and non-statin pharmacotherapy for those at highest risk. Modest improvements in the initiation, use, and adherence to statin therapy in patients with ASCVD have occurred over the past decades. However, studies continue to document a less than desired implementation of guidelines highlighting a substantial and persistent treatment gap. The success of implementation depends on the consideration of a variety of barriers that exist throughout the healthcare delivery system. Further research is needed to comprehensively evaluate these barriers in order to develop appropriate and sustainable interventions to improve guideline implementation.

LDL-C target attainment in secondary prevention of ASCVD in the United States: barriers, consequences of nonachievement, and strategies to reach goals

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. Elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a major causal risk factor for ASCVD. Current evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that lowering LDL-C reduces the risk of secondary cardiovascular events in patients with previous myocardial infarction or stroke. There is no lower limit for LDL-C: large, randomized studies and meta-analyses have found continuous benefit and no safety concerns in patients achieving LDL-C levels <25 mg/dL. As 'Time is plaque' in patients with ASCVD, early, sustained reductions in LDL-C are critical to slow or halt disease progression. However, despite use of lipid-lowering medications, <30% of patients with ASCVD achieve guideline-recommended reductions in LDL-C, resulting in a substantial societal burden of preventable cardiovascular events and early mortality. LDL-C goals are not met due to several factors: lipid-lowering therapy is not initiated and intensified as directed by clinical guidelines (clinical inertia); most patients do not adhere to prescribed medications; and high-risk patients are frequently denied access to add-on therapies by their insurance providers. Promoting patient and clinician education, multidisciplinary collaboration, and other interventions may help to overcome these barriers. Ultimately, achieving population-level guideline-recommended reductions in LDL-C will require a collaborative effort from patients, clinicians, relevant professional societies, drug manufacturers, and payers.

High-Intensity Statin Use Among Patients With Atherosclerosis in the U.S

BACKGROUND

Preventive therapy among patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is generally underused. Whether new guideline recommendations and a focus on implementation have improved the use of high-intensity statins is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate the patterns and predictors of statin use among patients with ASCVD.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, pharmacy and medical claims data from a commercial health plan were queried for patients with established ASCVD between January 31, 2018, and January 31, 2019. Statin use on an index date of January 31, 2019, was evaluated, as was 12-month adherence and discontinuation. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine independent associations with statin use of varying intensities.

RESULTS

Of the 601,934 patients with established ASCVD, 41.7% were female, and the mean age was 67.5 ± 13.3 years. Overall, 22.5% of the cohort were on a high-intensity statin, 27.6% were on a low- or moderate-intensity statin, and 49.9% were not on any statin. In multivariable analysis, younger patients, female patients, and those with higher Charlson comorbidity score were less likely to be prescribed any statin. Among statin users, female patients, older patients, and those with peripheral artery disease were less likely to be on a high-intensity formulation, whereas a cardiology encounter in the prior year increased the odds. The majority of high-intensity stain users achieved high levels of adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial underuse of statins persists in a large, insured, and contemporary cohort of patients with ASCVD from the United States. In particular, concerning gaps in appropriate statin use remain among younger patients, women, and those with noncoronary ASCVD.

Leveraging structured and unstructured electronic health record data to detect reasons for suboptimal statin therapy use in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether natural language processing (NLP) of unstructured medical text can improve identification of ASCVD patients not using high-intensity statin therapy (HIST) due to statin-associated side effects (SASEs) and other reasons.

METHODS

Reviewers annotated reasons for not prescribing HIST in notes of 1152 randomly selected patients from across the VA healthcare system treated for ASCVD but not receiving HIST. Developers used reviewer annotations to train the Canary NLP tool to detect and extract notes containing one or more of these reasons. Negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, specificity and Area Under the Curve (AUC) were used to assess accuracy at detecting documents containing reasons when using structured data, NLP-extracted unstructured data, or both data sources combined.

RESULTS

At least one documented reason for not prescribing HIST occurred in 47% of notes. The most frequent reasons were SASEs (41%) and general intolerance (20%). When identifying notes containing any documented reason for not using HIST, adding NLP-extracted, unstructured data significantly (p<0.05) increased sensitivity (0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.76) to 0.89 (95% CI 0.81-0.93)), NPV (0.90 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.93) to 0.96 (95% CI 0.93-0.98)), and AUC (0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-0.88) to 0.91 (95% CI 0.90-0.93)) compared to structured data alone.

CONCLUSIONS

NLP extraction of data from unstructured text can improve identification of reasons for patients not being on HIST over structured data alone. The additional information provided through NLP of unstructured free text should help in tailoring and implementing system-level interventions to improve HIST use in patients with ASCVD.

The power of lipid registries for cardiovascular disease prevention

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lipid registry-based research is a valuable tool for assessing current lipid management in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Results of several registries are useful for improving clinical practice highlight gaps between guidelines and their implementation and potential impact on population health. We summarize recent clinical studies based on lipid registries.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current guidelines for lipid management recommend high-intensity statins and concomitant therapies such as ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitors for high-risk patients. However, recent observational studies show that the majority of patients received inadequate lipid-lowering therapy (LLT), and the low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) goal attainment rates are still unsatisfactory.

SUMMARY

There is a clear gap between lipid guidelines and lipid management in clinical practice. Clinical studies based on registry databases represent real-world conditions, as opposed to clinical trials. Contemporary registry data reveal that only half of the patients received high-intensity statins, and less than half achieve the LDL-C <70 mg/dL in secondary prevention. In addition, the major reasons for insufficient therapy have been shown to be not only side effects of LLT, but poor adherence by patients to medication regimens and low use of combination therapies by physicians. The real-world evidence from lipid registries clarifies gaps, areas for focus for implementation, to improve CVD prevention.

Predictors of PCSK9 (Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin Type 9) Inhibitor Prescriptions for Secondary Prevention of Clinical Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

Little is known about patterns of PCSK9i (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor) use among patients with established clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. This study's objective was to describe PCSK9i prescribing patterns among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

We used a national outpatient clinic registry linked to zip-code level on household income from the US Census to assess characteristics of patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) <190 mg/dL between September 1, 2015, and September 30, 2019, who did and did not receive PCSK9i prescriptions and practice-level and temporal variation in PCSK9i prescriptions. We assessed predictors of PCSK9i prescription with a multivariable mixed effects regression model which included patient covariates as fixed effects and the cardiology practice as a random effect. Adjusted practice-level variation in PCSK9i prescribing was evaluated with median odds ratio (OR).

RESULTS

Of 2 148 100 patients meeting study inclusion criteria, 27 249 (1.3%) received PCSK9i prescriptions. Receiving a PCSK9i prescription was associated with White race (versus non-White: OR, 1.78 [95% CI, 1.55-1.83]); high estimated household income (versus low income: OR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.08-1.29]), and urban or suburban (versus rural) practice location (urban: OR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.32-1.64]; suburban: OR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.13-1.39]). Hispanics had lower odds of receiving PCSK9i prescriptions (OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.57-0.76]). The adjusted median odds ratio was 2.68 (95% CI, 2.46-2.94), consistent with clinically significant practice-level variation in PCSK9i prescriptions. No differences in quarterly PCSK9i prescription rates were observed before and after price reductions for evolocumab and alirocumab initiated during the fourth quarter of 2018 and first quarter of 2019, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights racial, socioeconomic, geographic, and practice-level variations in early PCSK9i prescriptions which persist despite adjustment for clinical and demographic factors. After adjustment, 2 randomly selected practices would differ in likelihood of PCSK9i prescription by a factor of >2.

Geographic variations in lipid-lowering therapy utilization, LDL-C levels, and proportion retrospectively meeting the ACC/AHA very high-risk criteria in a real-world population of patients with major atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events in the United States

OBJECTIVE

We assessed national- and state-level geographic variations among patients with a history of ≥1 major atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) event in: (1) the proportion of patients with retrospectively identified 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline very high-risk (VHR) ASCVD criteria; (2) utilization of guideline-directed lipid-lowering therapy (LLT); and (3) the proportion of patients with persistent low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) elevations despite statin and/or ezetimibe use.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using the Prognos LDL-C database linked to IQVIA longitudinal medical and prescription claims databases. The study period was from January 01, 2011, to November 30, 2019 and the index period was from January 01, 2016, to November 30, 2019; the index date was defined as the most recent LDL-C test during the index period. The study included patients aged ≥18 years at index who had a measured LDL-C level during the index period and had ≥1 inpatient/outpatient claim for ASCVD during the 5-year pre-index period.

RESULTS

Of patients with any ASCVD (N=4652,468), 1537,514 (33.1%) patients had ≥1 major ASCVD event. Among patients with ≥1 major ASCVD event, the VHR ASCVD criteria were retrospectively identified in 1139,018 (74.1%) patients; Hawaii had the highest (81.7%) and Colorado the lowest (65.0%) proportion of these patients. Nationally, 48.8% and 50.2% of patients with ≥1 major ASCVD event and retrospectively identified VHR ASCVD criteria, respectively, had current LLT use; Massachusetts and Colorado had the highest and lowest proportions, respectively. After standardizing for age and sex, 57.3% and 58.8% of patients with ≥1 major ASCVD event and retrospectively identified VHR ASCVD criteria, respectively, had LDL-C ≥70 mg/dL (≥1.8 mmol/L) despite statin and/or ezetimibe use, with substantial state-level variations observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The study highlights high rates of elevated LDL-C and pervasive underuse of LLT in health-insured patients with a history of major ASCVD events treated in the United States, with state-level geographic variations observed.

Barriers to prescribing glucose-lowering therapies with cardiometabolic benefits

BACKGROUND

The adoption of 2 classes of new diabetes medications, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), has been slow in the United States despite their cardiovascular benefits in addition to their glucose-lowering effect. The objective of this study was to identify providers' perspectives about prescribing GLP1RA and SGLT2i.

METHODS

In this survey study, a questionnaire was administered between May 17, 2018, and June 11, 2018, in a large academic health care system. Ninety providers who practice in endocrinology, primary care, or cardiology responded the questionnaire, with a 36.3% response rate. The questionnaire explored knowledge, comfort level, beliefs, perceived barriers, and hypothetical clinical decisions about prescribing GLP1RA and SGLT2i.

RESULTS

Findings suggested a division of views from endocrinology and primary care providers versus cardiology providers. More than 88% of endocrinology providers and about 50% of primary care providers prescribed GLP1RA or SGLT2i at least 6 times a year, whereas less than 7% of cardiology providers prescribed either medication. All endocrinology providers, approximately 78% of primary care providers, and only 21% of cardiology providers were very comfortable or comfortable in all 4 knowledge aspects about GLP1RA and SGLT2i. Major barriers to prescribing GLP1RA and SGLT2i for endocrinology and primary care providers were cost and nonapproved prior authorizations, yet the top 3 reported barriers for cardiology providers were lack of knowledge about these medications, concerns of introducing confusion into diabetes care, and discomfort of prescribing diabetes medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Barriers to prescribing GLP1RA or SGLT2i are unique for endocrinology, primary care, and cardiology providers. Given the cardiovascular benefits of these medications, this study suggests specific areas and potential opportunities for clinicians to improve care for patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease.