Statin use in outpatients with obstructive coronary artery disease

Prognostic impact of high-intensity lipid-lowering therapy under-prescription after acute myocardial infarction in women

AIMS

Women are less likely to receive lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We analysed whether this under-prescription currently persists and has an impact on long-term outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The FAST-MI programme consists of nationwide registries including all patients admitted for AMI ≤ 48 h from onset over a 1 month period in 2005, 2010, and 2015, with long-term follow-up. This analysis focused on high-intensity LLT (atorvastatin ≥ 40 mg or equivalent, or any combination of statin and ezetimibe) in women and men. Women accounted for 28% (N = 3547) of the 12 659 patients. At discharge, high-intensity LLT was significantly less prescribed in women [54 vs. 68% in men, P < 0.001, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.78(95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-0.87)], a trend that did not improve over time: 2005, 25 vs. 35% (P = 0.14); 2010, 66 vs. 79% (P < 0.001); 2015, 67 vs. 79.5% (P = 0.001). In contrast, female sex was not associated with a lack of other recommended treatments at discharge: beta-blockers [adjusted OR 0.98(95% CI 0.88-1.10), P = 0.78], or renin-angiotensin blockers [adjusted OR 0.94(95% CI 0.85-1.03), P = 0.18]. High-intensity LLT at discharge was significantly associated with improved 5 year survival and infarct- and stroke-free survival in women [adjusted hazard ratios (HR) 0.74(95% CI 0.64-0.86), P < 0.001 and adjusted HR: 0.81(95% CI: 0.74-0.89); P < 0.001, respectively]. Similar results were found using a propensity score-matched analysis [HR for 5 year survival in women with high-intensity LLT: 0.82(95% CI 0.70-0.98), P = 0.03].

CONCLUSION

Women suffer from a bias regarding the prescription of high-intensity LLT after AMI, which did not attenuate between 2005 and 2015, with potential consequences on both survival and risk of cardiovascular events.

10-Year Mortality After ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Compared to the General Population

BACKGROUND

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is associated with high early mortality. However, it remains unclear if patients surviving the early phase have long-term excess mortality.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to assess excess mortality in STEMI patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with an age- and- sex-matched general population at landmark periods 0 to 30 days, 31 to 90 days, and 91 days to 10 years.

METHODS

Using the Western Denmark Heart Registry, we identified first-time PCI-treated patients who had primary PCI for STEMI from January 2003 to October 2018. Each patient was matched by age and sex to 5 individuals from the general population.

RESULTS

We included 18,818 patients with first-time STEMI and 94,090 individuals from the general population. Baseline comorbidity burden was similar in STEMI patients and matched individuals. Compared with the matched individuals, STEMI was associated with a 5.9% excess mortality from 0 to 30 days (6.0% vs 0.2%; HR: 36.44; 95% CI: 30.86-43.04). An excess mortality remained present from 31 to 90 days (0.9% vs 0.4%; HR: 2.43; 95% CI: 2.02-2.93). However, in 90-day STEMI survivors, the absolute excess mortality was only 2.1 percentage points at 10-year follow-up (26.5% vs 24.5%; HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 1.01-1.08). Use of secondary preventive medications such as statins, antiplatelet therapy, and beta-blockers was very high in STEMI patients throughout 10-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In primary PCI-treated STEMI patients with high use of guideline-recommended therapy, patients surviving the first 90 days had 10-year mortality that was only 2% higher than that of a matched general population.

Could Plasma CXCL12 Predict Ventricular Dysfunction in Patients with Severe Myocardial Infarction?

Plasma level of chemokine CXCL12 can predict adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease, but data on its relationship with severity of coronary stenosis in cases of severe myocardial infarction (MI) are scarce and conflicting. The objective of this study was to investigate link between plasma CXCL12 levels and different grades of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in statin-treated and -untreated patients with severe MI. A total of 198 consecutive patients with first-time severe MI (ST-elevated myocardial infarction [STEMI], n  = 121 and non-ST-elevated myocardial infarction [NSTEMI], n  = 77) were recruited from Coronary Care Unit, King Abdulaziz University Hospital. They have one to two coronary arteries blocked ≥50%, or three arteries blocked 30 to 49%. Demographic and clinical criteria were collected and plasma CXCL12 level was measured. No correlations were detected between demographic and clinical criteria and CXCL12 level. While troponin peaks and LVEF significantly differed between STEMI and NSTEMI patients, CXCL12 level showed nonsignificant changes. Plasma CXCL12 levels decreased significantly in statin-treated patients compared with those untreated. From receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, high CXCL12 levels were associated with no statin therapy. For STEMI and NSTEMI patients, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for CXCL12 test were 0.685 and 0.820, while sensitivity and specificity values were 75.9 and 54.8%, and 73.1 and 84%, respectively. Plasma CXCL12 levels showed nonsignificant changes with different ranges of LVEF and troponin peaks. In patients with severe MI, irrespective of statin therapy, plasma CXCL12 showed no correlation with different ranges of LVEF suggesting that it cannot predict left ventricular dysfunction in these cases. However, cross-sectional design of this study is a limitation.

The neuroprotective effect of statin in traumatic brain injury: A systematic review

Despite recent encouraging pharmaceutical and technical breakthroughs in neurosurgical critical care, traumatic brain injury (TBI)-related mortality and morbidity remain substantial clinical issues. Medication of statins was revealed to enhance outcomes following TBI in animal research. In addition to their main role of decreasing serum cholesterol, statins decrease inflammation and enhance cerebral blood flow. However, research on the efficacy of statins in TBI is still limited. This systematic review was conducted to determine the efficacy of statins in enhancing the clinical outcomes of TBI individuals, and specifically investigate the optimal dose and form of statins. The databases of PubMed, DOAJ, EBSCO, and Cochrane were extensively researched. The date of publication within the last fifteen years was the inclusion criterion. Meta-analyses, clinical trials, and randomized controlled trials were prioritized forms of research publications. Ambiguous remarks, irrelevant correlations to the main issue, or a focus on disorders other than TBI were the exclusion criteria. Thirteen research were included in this study. Simvastatin, atorvastatin, and rosuvastatin were the main form of statins discussed in this study. Enhancement of the Glasgow Coma Scale, survival rates, hospital length of stay, and cognitive outcomes were revealed in this study. This study suggests either simvastatin 40 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg, or rosuvastatin 20 mg for 10 days as the optimal therapeutic forms and doses to be applied in the management of TBI. Pre-TBI statin use was linked to lower risk of mortality in TBI individuals compared to nonusers, whereas statin discontinuation was linked to an increase in mortality.

Analyzing and Improving the Utilization of Statin Drugs in Family Medicine Patients with Type II Diabetes

Background

Statins are the primary drug used to reduce morbidity and mortality for cardiovascular disease. However, many type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients who are currently not on a statin would otherwise qualify. Therefore, we investigated the proportion of T2DM patients on a statin compared to the total number of T2DM patients eligible to be on a statin. We also examined potential barriers that prevent T2DM patients from being prescribed statins by physicians.

Methods

A retrospective chart study on family medicine patients was collected data on age, race, cholesterol readings, blood pressure, and whether the patient was on blood pressure medications, aspirin, and/or a statin. The information gathered was used to determine the patients' 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease. A survey was given to residents and faculty to assess the cost, side effects, and other behavioral factors had on a patients' choice to be on a statin.

Results

Among the 706 T2DM patients, we found that a large proportion (75.2%) were both eligible and prescribed a statin according to the American Heart Association Guidelines. In addition, over 58% of the patients had a 0%-25% 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease risk. Among the 14 family medicine physicians surveyed, the fear of or history of side effects with statin medications were the greatest barriers to starting statins.

Conclusion

The large proportion of family medicine patients that were eligible were prescribed a statin. According to the survey, physicians Believed that the greatest barrier for a patient starting on a statin is the fear of or history of side effects with statin medications.

Trends in LDL-C following coronary angiography involving assessment by fractional flow reserve in obstructive vs non-obstructive coronary artery disease

Background

We sought to determine whether management of LDL-C following invasive angiography and assessment by fractional flow reserve (FFR) differs between those with obstructive vs non-obstructive CAD.

Methods

Retrospective study of 721 patients undergoing coronary angiography involving assessment by FFR between 2013 and 2020 at a single academic center. Groups with obstructive vs non-obstructive CAD by index angiographic and FFR findings were compared over 1 year of follow-up.

Results

Based on index angiographic and FFR findings, 421 (58%) patients had obstructive CAD vs 300 (42%) with non-obstructive CAD, mean (±SD) age 66±11 years, 217 (30%) women, and 594 (82%) white. There was no difference in baseline LDL-C. At 3-months follow-up, LDL-C was lower than baseline in both groups, with no between group difference. In contrast, at 6-months, median (Q1, Q3) LDL-C was significantly higher in non-obstructive vs obstructive CAD (LDL-C 73 (60, 93) vs 63 (48, 77) mg/dL, respectively (p = 0.003), (p = 0.001 in multivariable linear regression)). At 12-months, LDL-C remained higher in non-obstructive vs obstructive CAD (LDL-C 73 (49, 86) vs 64 (48, 79) mg/dL, respectively, although not statistically significant (p = 0.104)). The rate of high-intensity statin use was lower among those with non-obstructive CAD vs obstructive CAD at all time points (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

After coronary angiography involving FFR, there is intensification of LDL-C lowering at 3-months follow-up in both obstructive and non-obstructive CAD. However, by 6-months follow-up LDL-C is significantly higher among those with non-obstructive CAD vs obstructive CAD. Following coronary angiography involving FFR, patients with non-obstructive CAD may benefit from greater attention to LDL-C lowering to reduce residual ASCVD risk.

Generating Practice-Based Evidence in the Use of Guideline-Recommended Combination Therapy for Secondary Prevention of Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background: Clinical guidelines recommend beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers, and statins for the secondary prevention of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). It is not clear whether variation in real-world practice reflects poor quality-of-care or a balance of outcome tradeoffs across patients. Methods: The study cohort included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized 2007-2008 for AMI. Treatment within 30-days post-discharge was grouped into one of eight possible combinations for the three drug classes. Outcomes included one-year overall survival, one-year cardiovascular-event-free survival, and 90-day adverse events. Treatment effects were estimated using an Instrumental Variables (IV) approach with instruments based on measures of local-area practice style. Pre-specified data elements were abstracted from hospital medical records for a stratified, random sample to create "unmeasured confounders" (per claims data) and assess model assumptions. Results: Each drug combination was observed in the final sample (N = 124,695), with 35.7% having all three, and 13.5% having none. Higher rates of guideline-recommended treatment were associated with both better survival and more adverse events. Unmeasured confounders were not associated with instrumental variable values. Conclusions: The results from this study suggest that providers consider both treatment benefits and harms in patients with AMIs. The investigation of estimator assumptions support the validity of the estimates.

The Association Between Medication Non-Adherence and Early and Late Readmission Rates for Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

Purpose

Unplanned hospital readmission forms costly, but preventable burdens on healthcare system. This study was designed to evaluate cardiovascular-related readmission rate after discharge of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients and its relationship with medication adherence at a university hospital, Saudi Arabia.

Methods

A total of 370 consecutive patients presenting with ACS were involved. The inclusion criteria were clinical and coronary angiography diagnostic data of ACS. Exclusion criteria included heart valve disease, myocarditis, hepatic disease, and history of acute infection during the previous two weeks. Patients were divided into index admission group (n = 291) and unplanned readmission group (n = 79). Readmission and medication adherence rates were evaluated during 1–30, 31–180, 181–365, and 366–548 days post-ACS discharge. Medication adherence was estimated with a (yes/no) questionnaire.

Results

The overall readmission rate was 21.4%; individual rates were 30.4%, 38.0%, 27.8%, and 3.8% and the overall medication adherence rate was 62.03%, while individual rates were 54.2%, 70.0%, 63.6%, and 33.3% during the four periods, respectively. There were strong correlations between medication non-adherence and readmission rates. Heart failure, ST-elevated myocardial infarction, unstable angina, cerebrovascular accident, and arrhythmia represented the top causes. Body mass index was higher in readmission group. There were significant correlations between smoking, hypertension, cerebrovascular accident, ischemic heart disease, previous stent, instent restenosis, and LDL-cholesterol as predictor factors and readmission rate.

Conclusion

The cardiovascular-related unplanned readmission rate post-ACS discharge was 21.4%, and medication non-adherence rate was 37.97%. There were strong correlations between them in the time frames from 1-month to 1.5-year post-discharge. The individual rates decreased by time, but the first month showed lower rates than the following 5 months and this indicated the role of factors other than medication non-adherence in readmission. The rates are generally consistent with the international levels but utilizing technology can further improve medication adherence and reduce readmission rates.

Impact of cardiologist intervention on guideline-directed use of statin therapy

BACKGROUND

Statins have an important and well-established role in the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, several studies have reported widespread underuse of statins in various practice settings and populations. Review of relevant literature reveals opportunities for improvement in the implementation of guideline-directed statin therapy (GDST).

AIM

To examine the impact of cardiologist intervention on the use of GDST in the ambulatory setting.

METHODS

Patients with at least one encounter at the adult Internal Medicine Clinic (IMC) and/or Cardiology Clinic (CC), who had an available serum cholesterol test performed, were evaluated. The 2 comparison groups were defined as: (1) Patients only seen by IMC; and (2) Patients seen by both IMC and CC. Patients were excluded if variables needed for calculation of ASCVD risk scores were lacking, and if demographic information lacked guideline-directed treatment recommendations. Data were analyzed using student t-tests or χ², as appropriate. Analysis of Variance was used to compare rates of adherence to GDST.

RESULTS

A total of 268 patients met the inclusion criteria for this study; 211 in the IMC group and 57 in the IMC-CC group. Overall, 56% of patients were female, mean age 56 years (± 10.65, SD), 22% Black or African American, 56% Hispanic/Latino, 14% had clinical ASCVD, 13% current smokers, 66% diabetic and 63% hypertensive. Statin use was observed in 55% (n = 147/268) of the entire patient cohort. In the IMC-CC group, 73.6% (n = 42/57) of patients were prescribed statin therapy compared to 50.7% (n = 107/211) of patients in the IMC group (P = 0.002). In terms of appropriate statin use based on guidelines, there was no statistical difference between groups [IMC-CC group 61.4% (n = 35/57) vs IMC group, 55.5% (n = 117/211), P = 0.421]. Patients in the IMC-CC group were older, had more cardiac risk factors and had higher proportions of non-white patients compared to the IMC group (P < 0.02, all).

CONCLUSION

Although overall use of GDST was suboptimal, there was no statistical difference in appropriate statin use based on guidelines between groups managed by general internists alone or co-managed with a cardiologist. These findings highlight the need to design and implement strategies to improve adherence rates to GDST across all specialties.

Gaps in Dyslipidemia Care Among Working-Aged Individuals With Employer-Sponsored Health Care

Background

The American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology guidelines defined patient‐management groups that would benefit from lowering of low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C). We assessed gaps in dyslipidemia care among employees and spouses with health benefits.

Methods and Results

We studied 17 889 employees and spouses who were covered by an employer‐sponsored health plan and participated in an annual health assessment. Using medical claims, laboratory tests, and risk assessment questionnaires, we found that 43% of participants were in one of 4 patient‐management groups: secondary prevention, severe hypercholesterolemia (LDL‐C ≥190 mg/dL at least once in the preceding 5 years), diabetes mellitus, or elevated 10‐year risk of cardiovascular disease. To assess gaps in dyslipidemia care, we used LDL‐C ≤70 mg/dL as the goal for both the secondary prevention group and those in the elevated 10‐year risk group with >20% risk; LDL‐C ≤100 mg/dL was used for the other groups. Among those in patient‐management groups, 27.3% were in the secondary prevention group, 7.4% were in the severe hypercholesterolemia group, 29.9% were in the diabetes mellitus group, and 35.4% were in the elevated 10‐year risk group. About 74% of those in patient‐management groups had above‐goal LDL‐C levels, whereas only 31% had evidence of a lipid‐lowering therapy in the past 6 months: 45% in the secondary prevention group, 31% in the severe hypercholesterolemia group, 36% in the diabetes mellitus group, and 17% in the elevated 10‐year risk group.

Conclusions

The substantial gaps in LDL‐C treatment and goal attainment among members of an employer‐sponsored medical plan who were mostly aware of their LDL‐C levels indicate the need for gap‐closure initiatives.

Impact of Lipid Monitoring on Treatment Intensification of Cholesterol Lowering Therapies (from the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System)

Treatment guidelines recommend monitoring of lipids to assess efficacy and adherence to lipid lowering therapy. We assessed whether lipid profile monitoring is associated with intensification of cholesterol lowering therapy. Patients from the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and at least one primary care visit between October 2013 and September 2014 were included (n = 1,061,753). Treatment intensification was defined as the initiation of a statin, an increase in the intensity or dose of statin therapy and/or the addition of ezetimibe. An association between the number of lipid panels and treatment intensification was assessed with adjusted regression models. During the study period, 87.1% of included patients had ≥1 lipid panel. Patients with ≥1 lipid panel were more likely to undergo treatment intensification compared with individuals with 0 lipid panels (9.3% vs 5.4%, respectively, p <0.001). Among individuals not on statin therapy at the index date (n = 287,636), those with ≥1 lipid panel were more likely to have a statin initiated compared those who without a lipid panel (21.5% vs 8.7%, p <0.001). On regression analysis (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval {CI}]), patients with 1 lipid panel (1.55 [1.50 to 1.59]), 2 to 3 lipid panels (1.76 [1.71 to 1.81]) and >3 lipid panels (3.02 [2.90 to 3.14]) showed greater odds of treatment intensification compared with individuals without a lipid panel. In conclusion, lipid monitoring is associated with higher rates of treatment intensification in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. This has important clinical implications as higher intensity regimens with statins and in combination with select nonstatin therapies is associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes.

Adoption of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Management Guideline in Cardiology Practices Nationwide

Importance

The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Cholesterol Management Guideline recommends moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin therapy in eligible patients.

Objective

To examine adoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline in US cardiology practices.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Among 161 cardiology practices, trends in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) were analyzed before (September 1, 2012, to November 1, 2013) and after (February 1, 2014, to April 1, 2015) publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline among 4 mutually exclusive risk groups within the ACC Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry. Interrupted time series analysis was used to evaluate for differences in trend in use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT use in hierarchical logistic regression models. Participants were a population-based sample of 1 105 356 preguideline patients (2 431 192 patient encounters) and 1 116 472 postguideline patients (2 377 219 patient encounters). Approximately 97% of patients had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Exposures

Moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT use before and after publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Time trend in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT.

Results

In the study cohort, the mean (SD) age was 69.6 (12.1) years among 1 105 356 patients (40.2% female) before publication of the guideline and 70.0 (11.9) years among 1 116 472 patients (39.8% female) after publication of the guideline. Although there was a trend toward increasing use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins overall and in the ASCVD cohort, such a trend was already present before publication of the guideline. No significant difference in trend in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins was observed in other groups. The use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin therapy was 62.1% (before publication of the guideline) and 66.6% (after publication of the guideline) in the overall cohort, 62.7% (before publication) and 67.0% (after publication) in the ASCVD cohort, 50.6% (before publication) and 52.3% (after publication) in the cohort with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (ie, ≥190 mg/dL), 52.4% (before publication) and 55.2% (after publication) in the diabetes cohort, and 41.9% (before publication) and 46.9% (after publication) in the remaining group with 10-year ASCVD risk of 7.5% or higher. In hierarchical logistic regression models, there was a significant increase in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins in the overall cohort (4.8%) and in the ASCVD cohort (4.3%) (P < .01 for slope for both). There was no significant change for other risk cohorts. Nonstatin LLT use remained unchanged in the preguideline and postguideline periods in the hierarchical logistic regression models for all of the risk groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

Adoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA Cholesterol Management Guideline in cardiology practices was modest. Timely interventions are needed to improve guideline-concordant practice to reduce the burden of ASCVD.

Association of Statin Adherence With Mortality in Patients With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

Importance

Statins decrease mortality in those with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but statin adherence remains suboptimal.

Objective

To determine the association between statin adherence and mortality in patients with ASCVD who have stable statin prescriptions.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort analysis included patients who were between ages 21 and 85 years and had 1 or more International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes for ASCVD on 2 or more dates in the previous 2 years without intensity changes to their statin prescription who were treated within the Veterans Affairs Health System between January 1, 2013, and April 2014.

Exposures

Statin adherence was defined by the medication possession ratio (MPR). Adherence levels were categorized as an MPR of less than 50%, 50% to 69%, 70% to 89%, and 90% or greater. For dichotomous analyses, adherence was defined as an MPR of 80% or greater.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was death of all causes adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as adherence to other cardiac medications.

Results

Of 347 104 eligible adults with ASCVD who had stable statin prescriptions, 5472 (1.6%) were women, 284 150 (81.9%) were white, 36 208 (10.4%) were African American, 16 323 (4.7%) were Hispanic, 4093 (1.2%) were Pacific Islander, 1293 (0.4%) were Native American, 1145 (0.3%) were Asian, and 1794 (0.5%) were other races. Patients taking moderate-intensity statin therapy were more adherent than patients taking high-intensity statin therapy (odds ratio [OR], 1.18; 95% CI, 1.16-1.20). Women were less adherent (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.94), as were minority groups. Younger and older patients were less likely to be adherent compared with adults aged 65 to 74 years. During a mean (SD) of 2.9 (0.8) years of follow-up, there were 85 930 deaths (24.8%). Compared with the most adherent patients (MPR ≥ 90%), patients with an MPR of less than 50% had a hazard ratio (HR; adjusted for clinical characteristics and adherence to other cardiac medications) of 1.30 (95% CI, 1.27-1.34), those with an MPR of 50% to 69% had an HR of 1.21 (95% CI, 1.18-1.24), and those with an MPR of 70% to 89% had an HR of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.06-1.09).

Conclusions and Relevance

Using a national sample of Veterans Affairs patients with ASCVD, we found that a low adherence to statin therapy was associated with a greater risk of dying. Women, minorities, younger adults, and older adults were less likely to adhere to statins. Our findings underscore the importance of finding methods to improve adherence.

Underutilization of Statin Therapy for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Among Older Adults

Secondary cardiovascular disease (CVD) clinical trials have demonstrated that higher intensity levels of statin therapy are more effective than lower levels in reducing mortality rates. Despite updated treatment guidelines, statin therapy may be underutilized, with evidence that females are treated less aggressively than males. The primary objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of statin utilization by varying therapy intensity by sex. The secondary objective was to document the benefits of statin therapy intensity levels on all-cause mortality for males and females. A 25% random sample of adults ≥65 years was utilized to identify those with established CVD. Inclusion criteria included: (1) 12-month pre period and (2) up to 30 months post period. Five categories of statin utilization were established: adherent to high-, moderate-, or low-intensity statin therapy, nonadherent, and no statins. Among eligible insureds (N = 49,530 males; N = 44,710 females), 20% of males and 12% of females were identified as high-intensity statin users. Mortality rates significantly increased similarly for males and females as statin therapy intensity decreased. Likewise, mortality hazard ratios indicated the most benefit from high-intensity statin therapy compared to all other categories. Statin therapy for secondary prevention of CVD is beneficial in reducing mortality for males and females but is underutilized, especially among females. Education programs among patients to increase heart health awareness and among physicians to promote the benefits of updated statin guidelines should be encouraged.

Awareness of Cardiovascular Risk Factors in U.S. Young Adults Aged 18-39 Years

INTRODUCTION

Young adults with hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and diabetes are at increased risk of developing heart disease later in life. Despite emphasis on early screening, little is known about awareness of these risk factors in young adulthood.

METHODS

Data from the nationally representative cross-sectional National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2011-2014 were analyzed in 2017 to estimate the prevalence of self-reported awareness of hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, and diabetes in U.S. young adults aged 18-39 years (n=11,083). Prevalence estimates were weighted to population estimates using survey procedures, and predictors of awareness were identified using weighted logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among U.S. young adults, the prevalence of hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, and diabetes was 8.8% (SE=0.4%); 7.3% (SE=0.3%); and 2.6% (SE=0.2%), respectively. The prevalence of borderline high cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood glucose were substantially higher (21.6% [SE= 0.6%]; 26.9% [SE=0.7%]; and 18.9% [SE=0.6%], respectively). Awareness was low for hypercholesterolemia (56.9% [SE=2.4%]) and moderate for hypertension and diabetes (62.7% [SE=2.4%] and 70.0% [SE=2.7%]); <25% of young adults with borderline levels of these risk factors were aware of their risk. Correlates of risk factor awareness included older age, insurance status, family income above the poverty line, U.S. origin, having a usual source of health care, and the presence of comorbid conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors in U.S. young adults, awareness remains less than ideal. Interventions that target access may increase awareness and facilitate achieving treatment goals in young adults.

Quality and Safety in Health Care, Part XXXIV: Coronary Artery Disease Secondary Prevention Medications

There is an important opportunity for improvement in the care of cardiology outpatients by having greater compliance with published guidelines, and the PINNACLE (Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence) Registry seeks to do that. One of the major areas studied by this registry is the use of secondary prevention medications for patients with coronary artery disease. Appropriate use of these medications decreases later myocardial infarctions and death from a cardiac cause.

Effects of Guideline and Formulary Changes on Statin Prescribing in the Veterans Affairs

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of two sequential policy changes-the addition of a high-potency statin to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) formulary and the release of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) cholesterol guidelines-on VA provider prescribing.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

Retrospective analysis of 1,100,682 VA patients, 2011-2016.

STUDY DESIGN

Interrupted time-series analysis of changes in prescribing of moderate-to-high-intensity statins among high-risk patients and across high-risk subgroups. We also assessed changes in prescribing of atorvastatin and other statin drugs. We estimated marginal effects (ME) of formulary and guideline changes by comparing predicted and observed statin use.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Data from VA Corporate Data Warehouse.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The use of moderate-to-high-intensity statins increased by 2 percentage points following the formulary change (ME, 2.4, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2 to 2.6) and less than 1 percentage point following the guideline change (ME, 0.8, 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9). The formulary change led to approximately a 12 percentage-point increase in the use of moderate-to-high-intensity atorvastatin (ME, 11.5, 95% CI, 11.3 to 11.6). The relatively greater provider response to the formulary change occurred across all patient subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of a high-potency statin to formulary affected provider prescribing more than the ACC/AHA guidelines.

Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Randomized Controlled Trials on the Prevalence of Statin Intolerance

The prevalence of intolerance varies widely. Stopping statin therapy is associated with worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. Despite extensive studies, the benefits and risks of statins continue to be debated by clinicians and the lay public. We searched the PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases for all randomized controlled trials of statins compared with placebo. Studies were included if they had ≥1,000 participants, had patients who were followed up for ≥1 year, and reported rates of drug discontinuation. Studies were pooled as per the random effects model. A total of 22 studies (statins = 66,024, placebo = 63,656) met the inclusion criteria. The pooled analysis showed that, over a mean follow-up of 4.1 years, the rates of discontinuation were 13.3% (8,872 patients) for statin-treated patients and 13.9% (8,898 patients) for placebo-treated patients. The random effects model showed no significant difference between the placebo and statin arms (odds ratio [OR] = 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.93 to 1.06). The results were similar for both primary prevention (OR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.92 to 1.05, p = 0.39) and secondary prevention (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.83 to 1.05, p = 0.43) studies. The pooled analysis suggested that the rates of myopathy were also similar between the statins and placebos (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.62, p = 0.25). In conclusion, this meta-analysis of >125,000 patients suggests that the rate of drug discontinuation and myopathy does not significantly differ between statin- and placebo-treated patients in randomized controlled trials. These findings are limited by the heterogeneity of results, the variable duration of follow-up, and the lower doses of statins compared with contemporary clinical practice.

Trends in Use of High-Intensity Statin Therapy After Myocardial Infarction, 2011 to 2014

BACKGROUND

Data prior to 2011 suggest that a low percentage of patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndromes filled high-intensity statin prescriptions upon discharge. Black-box warnings, generic availability of atorvastatin, and updated guidelines may have resulted in a change in high-intensity statin use.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine trends and predictors of high-intensity statin use following hospital discharge for myocardial infarction (MI) between 2011 and 2014.

METHODS

Secular trends in high-intensity statin use following hospital discharge for MI were analyzed among patients 19 to 64 years of age with commercial health insurance in the MarketScan database (n = 42,893) and 66 to 75 years of age with U.S. government health insurance through Medicare (n = 75,096). Patients filling statin prescriptions within 30 days of discharge were included. High-intensity statins included atorvastatin 40 or 80 mg and rosuvastatin 20 or 40 mg.

RESULTS

The percentage of beneficiaries whose first statin prescriptions filled following hospital discharge for MI were for high-intensity doses increased from 33.5% in January through March 2011 to 71.7% in October through November 2014 in MarketScan and from 24.8% to 57.5% in Medicare. Increases in high-intensity statin use following hospital discharge occurred over this period among patients initiating treatment (30.6% to 72.0% in MarketScan and 21.1% to 58.8% in Medicare) and those taking low- or moderate-intensity statins prior to hospitalization (from 27.8% to 62.3% in MarketScan and from 12.6% to 45.1% in Medicare). In 2014, factors associated with filling high-intensity statin prescriptions included male sex, filling beta-blocker and antiplatelet agent prescriptions, and attending cardiac rehabilitation within 30 days following discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of high-intensity statins following hospitalization for MI increased progressively from 2011 through 2014.

High-Intensity Statin Therapy Is Associated With Improved Survival in Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

The relative benefit of higher statin dosing in patients with peripheral artery disease has not been reported previously. We compared the effectiveness of low- or moderate-intensity (LMI) versus high-intensity (HI) statin dose on clinical outcomes in patients with peripheral artery disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We reviewed patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease who underwent peripheral angiography and/or endovascular intervention from 2006 to 2013 who were not taking other lipid-lowering medications. HI statin use was defined as atorvastatin 40-80 mg or rosuvastatin 20-40 mg. Baseline demographics, procedural data, and outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. Among 909 patients, 629 (69%) were prescribed statins, and 124 (13.6%) were treated with HI statin therapy. Mean low-density lipoprotein level was similar in patients on LMI versus HI (80±30 versus 87±44 mg/dL, P=0.14). Demographics including age (68±12 versus 67±10 years, P=0.25), smoking history (76% versus 80%, P=0.42), diabetes mellitus (54% versus 48%, P=0.17), and hypertension (88% versus 89%, P=0.78) were similar between groups (LMI versus HI). There was a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease (56% versus 75%, P=0.0001) among patients on HI statin (versus LMI). After propensity weighting, HI statin therapy was associated with improved survival (hazard ratio for mortality: 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.81; P=0.004) and decreased major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio: 0.58; 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.92, P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with peripheral artery disease who were referred for peripheral angiography or endovascular intervention, HI statin therapy was associated with improved survival and fewer major adverse cardiovascular events compared with LMI statin therapy.

Opportunities for improving cardiovascular health outcomes in adults younger than 65 years with guideline-recommended statin therapy

The impact of age, race/ethnicity, healthcare insurance, and selected clinical variables on statin-preventable ASCVD were quantified in adults aged 21 to 79 years from National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2007-2012 using the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline on the treatment of cholesterol. Among ≈42.4 million statin-eligible, untreated adults, 52.6% were hypertensive and 71% were younger than 65 years. Of ≈232 000 statin-preventable ASCVD events annually, most occur in individuals younger than 65 years, with higher proportions in blacks and Hispanics than whites (73.0% and 69.2% vs 56.9%, respectively; P<.01). Among adults younger than 65 years, the ratio of statin-eligible but untreated to statin-treated adults was higher in blacks and Hispanics than whites (3.0 and 2.9 vs 1.3, respectively; P<.01), and blacks, men, hypertensives, and cigarette smokers were more likely to be statin eligible than their statin-ineligible counterparts by multivariable logistic regression. Two thirds of untreated statin-eligible adults had two or more healthcare visits per year. Identifying and treating more statin-eligible adults in the healthcare system could improve cardiovascular health equity.

Healthcare provider compliance with the 2013 ACC/AHA Adult Cholesterol Guideline recommendation for high-intensity dose statins for patients with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is the foremost cause of death for U.S. adults. The 2013 ACC/AHA Adult Cholesterol Guidelines recommend high-intensity dose statins for individuals with coronary artery disease (CAD).

OBJECTIVE

To determine healthcare provider compliance with the Cholesterol Guideline recommendation specific to high-intensity dose statins for patients with CAD.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted to determine compliance rate. A questionnaire was developed to evaluate healthcare provider beliefs, attitudes, and self-confidence toward this recommendation.

RESULTS

Of the 473 patients with CAD, 67% were prescribed a high-intensity dose statin. Patients with non-ST segment myocardial infarction and ST segment myocardial infarction were more likely to be prescribed a high-intensity dose statin versus a moderate or low-intensity dose. Healthcare providers strongly agreed with this guideline recommendation.

CONCLUSION

There exists a dichotomy between intention to prescribe and actual prescribing behaviors of high-intensity dose statin for patients with CAD.

Neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics and statin medication in patients with myocardial infarction: a Swedish nationwide follow-up study

Background

Coronary heart disease (CHD) and myocardial infarction (MI) are associated with neighborhood-level socioeconomic status (SES). Statins are important drugs for secondary prevention of MI. However, no study has determined whether neighborhood-level SES is associated with statin medication in MI patients. We aimed to determine whether there is a difference in statin medication rate in MI patients across different levels of neighborhood SES.

Methods

All patients in Sweden, diagnosed with incident MI from January 1st, 2000 until December 31^st 2010, were followed (n = 116,840). Of these, 89.7 % received statin medication. Data were analyzed by multilevel logistic regression, with individual-level characteristics (age, marital status, family income, educational attainment, country of origin, urban/rural status and comorbidities/chronic conditions related to MI) as covariates.

Results

Low neighborhood-level SES was significantly associated with low statin medication rate (Odds Ratio 0.80). In the full model, which took into account individual-level socioeconomic characteristics and MI comorbidities, the odds no longer remained significant.

Conclusions

Individual-level approaches may be most important in health care policies regarding statin medication in MI patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-016-0319-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Drivers of the Sex Disparity in Statin Therapy in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Women are less likely to be prescribed statins than men. Existing reports explain only a fraction of this difference. We conducted a study to identify factors that account for sex differences in statin therapy among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively studied 24,338 patients with CAD who were followed for at least a year between 2000 and 2011 at two academic medical centers. Women (9,006 / 37% of study patients) were less likely to either have initiated statin therapy (81.9% women vs. 87.7% men) or to have persistent statin therapy at the end of follow-up (67.0% women vs. 71.4% men). Women were older (72.9 vs. 68.4 years), less likely to have ever smoked (49.8% vs. 65.6%), less likely to have been evaluated by a cardiologist (57.5% vs. 64.5%) and more likely to have reported an adverse reaction to a statin (27.1% vs. 21.7%) (p < 0.0001 for all). In multivariable analysis, patients with history of smoking (OR 1.094; p 0.017), younger age (OR 1.013 / year), cardiologist evaluation (OR 1.337) and no reported adverse reactions to statins (OR 1.410) were more likely (p < 0.0001 for all) to have persistent statin therapy. Together, these four factors accounted for 90.4% of the sex disparity in persistent statin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Several specific factors appear to underlie divergent statin therapy in women vs. men. Identifying such drivers may facilitate programmatic interventions and stimulate further research to overcome sex differences in applying proven interventions for cardiovascular risk reduction.

A qualitative study of processes used to implement evidence-based care in a primary care practice

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based guidelines for care of coronary heart disease patients are not fully implemented. Primary care practices provide most of the care for these patients.

OBJECTIVE

To learn how providers and staff in a busy primary care practice implement interventions to provide evidence-based care of coronary heart disease patients.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative analysis of the responses to open-ended questions in nine electronically administered bimonthly surveys of key physicians, clinic staff and managers in the practice.

RESULTS

Ten to 16 (mean=12.3) personnel responded to each survey. Nearly 30% were physicians and 40.5% were clinic staff. Four major themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: (i) giving data about not-at-goal patients to providers for care plan development; (ii) developing team roles and defining tasks; (iii) providing patient care and implementing care plans and (iv) providing technology support to generate useful, accurate data. The frequency that the subthemes were mentioned varied from survey to survey, but their mention persisted over the entire time of all nine surveys.

CONCLUSIONS

Developing a system for implementing evidence-based care involves considerations of roles and teamwork, technology use to develop a patient registry and obtain needed clinical data, care processes for pre-visit planning, and between-visit care management. A registered nurse care manager is a central figure in implementing and sustaining the process. Implementing evidence-based guidelines is an ongoing process of revision, retraining and reinforcement.

Assessment of statin therapy, LDL-C levels, and cardiovascular events among high-risk patients in the United States

BACKGROUND

Statins have demonstrated significant benefit in reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate statin treatment patterns by intensity, elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, and cardiovascular (CV) events in high-risk CVD patients.

METHODS

Patients included were aged ≥ 18 years, with a coronary heart disease (CHD; Jan 1, 2007-Dec 31, 2011, index date) or CHD risk equivalent (CHD RE) diagnosis (Jan 1, 2007-Dec 31, 2010, index date), in the Truven MarketScan claims database, continuously enrolled for 2 years pre- and up to 1 (CHD) or 2 (CHD RE) years post-index. Patients with CHD, CHD RE, rhabdomyolysis, or chronic kidney disease any time pre-index were excluded. Statin therapy was assessed at baseline, 30, 90, and 365 days post-index. LDL-C values were captured in patients with available data at 30-day intervals up to 1 year. CV events were evaluated up to 1 year post-index. Descriptive statistics were used to report results.

RESULTS

There were 175,103 CHD and 68,290 CHD RE patients; 3333 CHD RE patients had post-index CV events. At 1 year, 38.7% of CHD patients and 44.3% of CHD RE patients with post-index CV events were not prescribed statins. Most patients who were prescribed statins, received a moderate-intensity statin. The percentage of patients with LDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dL reduced over time, but at 1 year, 29.3% of CHD and 30.0% of CHD RE patients with post-index CV events had LDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dL. At 1 year post-index, 9.9% CHD and 7.3% CHD RE patients had at least 1 CV event.

CONCLUSION

There is room for better LDL-C management among high-risk CVD patients to reduce their overall CV risk.

Frequency of Attainment of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Non-High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Goals in Cardiovascular Clinical Practice (from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry PINNACLE Registry)

Studies have found that non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) is a superior marker for coronary heart disease compared to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Little is known about achievement of non-HDL-C goals outside clinical trials. Within a population of 146,064 patients with dyslipidemia in the PINNACLE Registry and a subgroup of 36,188 patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), we examined the proportion of patients and patient characteristics associated with having LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and both LDL-C and non-HDL-C levels at National Cholesterol Education Program goals. LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and both LDL-C and non-HDL-C goals in the overall cohort were achieved by 73%, 73.4%, and 68.9% patients, respectively. Significant predictors of meeting all 3 goals were age, male gender, statin, nonstatin, and combined statin plus nonstatin use. Patients with co-morbidities of hypertension, previous stroke or transient ischemic attack, peripheral arterial disease, myocardial infarction, and smoking were less likely to have LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and both LDL-C and non-HDL-C levels at National Cholesterol Education Program goal. In the overall cohort, patients with DM were less likely to meet non-HDL-C and both LDL-C and non-HDL-C goals. In the subgroup of patients with DM, predictors of meeting lipid goals were similar to the overall cohort. In conclusion, these data suggest contemporary treatment patterns by cardiologists successfully achieve lipid goals in most patients. Younger, female patients and those with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and risk factors, such as hypertension and DM, are less likely to achieve goals and may require more careful follow-up after statin initiation. Both LDL-C and non-HDL-C goals are achieved in <70% of patients, suggesting room for improvement if a goal-targeted individualized strategy is adopted.

Antiplatelet and Statin Use in US Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Categorized by Race/Ethnicity and Gender, 2003 to 2012

Antiplatelets and statins are efficacious for preventing future cardiovascular events in patients with coronary heart disease. Disparity in cardiovascular outcomes exists by race/ethnicity and gender; however, few studies have explored potential disparities in long-term antiplatelet and statin use by race/ethnicity and gender. We conducted a repeated cross-sectional analysis using the nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 2003 to 2012. The sample consisted of 14,334 men and women >29 years with coronary heart disease. We identified antiplatelet and statin use, medical conditions, and sociodemographic characteristics. Rates of use did not change for statins or the combination of statins and antiplatelets from 2003 to 2012 but decreased for antiplatelets (p = 0.015). Of the total sample, 70.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.7 to 72.1) reported use of antiplatelets, 52.5% (95% CI 51.1 to 53.8) reported statin use, and 43.1% (95% CI 41.8 to 44.4) reported the combination. Use of antiplatelets and statins were associated with one another (odds ratio 3.22; 95% CI 2.87 to 3.62). From 2009 to 2012, black and Hispanic men along with all race/ethnicities of women were less likely to report use of statins, antiplatelets, and the combination of the 2 compared with white men, even after controlling for sociodemographics. Changing the definition of a medication use, inclusion of cardiovascular risk factors, or the inclusion of warfarin in the antiplatelet category did not substantially change the results. Future practice and policy goals should focus on increasing the number of high-risk patients on appropriate preventative medications while focusing particular attention on decreasing the identified disparity.

Frequency and practice-level variation in inappropriate aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: insights from the National Cardiovascular Disease Registry's Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence registry

BACKGROUND

Among patients without cardiovascular disease (CVD) and low 10-year CVD risk, the risks of gastrointestinal bleeding and hemorrhagic strokes associated with aspirin use outweigh any potential atheroprotective benefit. According to the guidelines on primary prevention of CVD, aspirin use is considered appropriate only in patients with 10-year CVD risk ≥6% and inappropriate in patients with 10-year CVD risk <6%.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to examine the frequency and practice-level variation in inappropriate aspirin use for primary prevention in a large U.S. nationwide registry.

METHODS

Within the National Cardiovascular Disease Registry's Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence registry, we assessed 68,808 unique patients receiving aspirin for primary prevention from 119 U.S. practices. The frequency of inappropriate aspirin use was determined for primary prevention (aspirin use in those with 10-year CVD risk <6%). Using hierarchical regression models, the extent of practice-level variation using the median rate ratio (MRR) was assessed.

RESULTS

Inappropriate aspirin use frequency was 11.6% (7,972 of 68,808) in the overall cohort. There was significant practice-level variation in inappropriate use (range 0% to 71.8%; median 10.1%; interquartile range 6.4%) for practices; adjusted MRR was 1.63 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.47 to 1.77). Results remained consistent after excluding 21,052 women age ≥65 years (inappropriate aspirin use 15.2%; median practice-level inappropriate aspirin use 13.8%; interquartile range 8.2%; adjusted MRR 1.61 [95% CI: 1.46 to 1.75]) and after excluding patients with diabetes (inappropriate aspirin use 13.9%; median practice-level inappropriate aspirin use 12.4%; interquartile range 7.6%; adjusted MRR 1.55 [95% CI: 1.41 to 1.67]).

CONCLUSIONS

More than 1 in 10 patients in this national registry were receiving inappropriate aspirin therapy for primary prevention, with significant practice-level variations. Our findings suggest that there are important opportunities to improve evidence-based aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD.

Association between Preoperative Statin Therapy and Postoperative Infectious Complications in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Infectious complications of cardiac surgery are often severe and life threatening. Statins having both immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects were intuitively thought to influence the development of postsurgical infections. We sought to systematically examine whether any association exists between statin use and risk of infectious complications in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Thomson Scientific Web of Science, and Elsevier Scopus from inception through February 2011 for comparative studies examining the association between statin use and risk of postoperative infections in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We contacted a study's author for missing information. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of individual studies' odds ratios (adjusted for potential confounders). We identified 6 cohort studies for inclusion, 3 of which were conducted in Canada and 3 of which were conducted in the United States. Four were single-center studies, and 2 were population based. Exposure ascertainment was based on a review of admission medication list or prescription databases. Infectious outcomes were heterogeneous and included surgical site infections within 30 days, serious infections (sepsis), or any other postoperative infection. Statin use in the preoperative period was associated with a trend toward reduction in the incidence of postoperative infections in patients who underwent cardiac surgery (odds ratio, 0.81 [95% confidence interval, 0.64–1.01]; P = .06; I2 = 75%). Heterogeneity was explained by country effect. Studies performed in Canada showed weaker associations than studies performed in the United States. This difference could not be attributed to study quality alone. We did not find good evidence to support an association between statin use and postoperative infectious complications. However, the trend toward statistical significance for this association indicates that further investigation is warranted.

Gender disparities in evidence-based statin therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease

Studies have shown gender disparities in cholesterol care in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), with women less likely than men to have low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels <100 mg/dl. Whether this is related to a lower evidence-based statin or high-intensity statin use is not known. We used a national cohort of 972,532 patients with CVD (coronary heart disease, peripheral artery disease, and ischemic stroke) receiving care in 130 Veterans Health Administration facilities from October 1, 2010, to September 30, 2011, to identify the proportion of male and female patients with CVD receiving any statin and high-intensity statin. Women with CVD (n = 13,371) were less likely than men to receive statins (57.6% vs 64.8%, p <0.0001) or high-intensity statins (21.1% vs 23.6%, p <0.0001). Mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (99 vs 85 mg/dl) were higher in women compared with men (p <0.0001). In adjusted models, female gender was independently associated with a lower likelihood of receiving statins (odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.71) or high-intensity statins (odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.80). The median facility-level rate of statin and high-intensity statin use among female patients (57.3% [interquartile range = 8.93%] for statin, 20% [interquartile range = 7.7%] for high-intensity statin use) showed significant variation. In conclusion, women with CVD are less likely to receive evidence-based statin and high-intensity statins compared with men, although, their use remains low in both genders. There is a significant facility-level variation in evidence-based statin or high-intensity statin use in female patients with CVD. With the "statin dose-based approach" proposed by the recent cholesterol guidelines, these results highlight areas for quality improvement.

Interinstitutional variation in management decisions for treatment of 4 common types of cancer: A multi-institutional cohort study

BACKGROUND

When clinical practice is governed by evidence-based guidelines and there is consensus about their validity, practice variation should be minimal. For areas in which evidence gaps exist, greater variation is expected.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess interinstitutional variation in management decisions for 4 common types of cancer.

DESIGN

Multi-institutional, observational cohort study of patients with cancer diagnosed between July 2006 through May 2011 and observed through 31 December 2011.

SETTING

18 cancer centers participating in the formulation of treatment guidelines and systematic outcomes assessment through the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

PATIENTS

25 589 patients with incident breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

MEASUREMENTS

Interinstitutional variation for 171 binary management decisions with varying levels of supporting evidence. For each decision, variation was characterized by the median absolute deviation of the center-specific proportions.

RESULTS

Interinstitutional variation was high (median absolute deviation >10%) for 35 of 171 (20%) oncology management decisions, including 9 of 22 (41%) decisions for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 16 of 76 (21%) for breast cancer, 7 of 47 (15%) for lung cancer, and 3 of 26 (12%) for colorectal cancer. Forty-six percent of high-variance decisions involved imaging or diagnostic procedures and 37% involved choice of chemotherapy regimen. The evidence grade underpinning the 35 high-variance decisions was category 1 for 0%, 2A for 49%, and 2B/other for 51%.

LIMITATION

Physician identifiers were unavailable, and results may not generalize outside of major cancer centers.

CONCLUSION

The substantial variation in institutional practice manifest among cancer centers reveals a lack of consensus about optimal management for common clinical scenarios. For clinicians, awareness of management decisions with high variation should prompt attention to patient preferences. For health systems, high variation can be used to prioritize comparative effectiveness research, patient-provider education, or pathway development.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute and National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Cardiovascular risk and statin use in the United States

PURPOSE

Statins reduce the risk of mortality and coronary artery disease in individuals at high cardiovascular risk. Using nationally representative data, we examined the relationships between statin use and cardiovascular risk, diagnosis of hyperlipidemia, and other risk factors.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the 2010 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, a nationally representative survey of the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population. The study sample had a total of 16,712 individuals aged 30 to 79 years. Those who reported filling at least 2 statin prescriptions were classified as statin users. We created multiple logistic regression models for statin use as the dependent variable, with cardiovascular risk factors and sociodemographic factors as independent variables.

RESULTS

Overall, 58.2% (95% CI, 54.6%-61.7%) of individuals with coronary artery disease and 52.0% (95% CI, 49.4%-54.6%) of individuals with diabetes aged older than 40 years were statin users. After adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors and sociodemographic factors, the probability of being on a statin was significantly higher among individuals with both hyperlipidemia and coronary artery disease, at 0.44 (95% CI, 0.40-0.48), or hyperlipidemia only, at 0.32 (95% CI, 0.30-0.33), than among those with coronary artery disease only, at 0.11 (95% CI, 0.07-0.15). A similar pattern was seen in people with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

In this nationally representative sample, many people at high risk for cardiovascular events, including those with coronary artery disease, diabetes, or both, were not receiving statins despite evidence that these agents reduce adverse events. This undertreatment appears to be related to placing too much emphasis on hyperlipidemia and not enough on cardiovascular risk. Recently released guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association offer an opportunity to improve statin use by focusing on cardiovascular risk instead of lipid levels.

Patterns of statin initiation, intensification, and maximization among patients hospitalized with an acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Intensive statins are superior to moderate statins in reducing morbidity and mortality after an acute myocardial infarction. Although studies have documented rates of statin prescription as a quality performance measure, variations in hospitals' rates of initiating, intensifying, and maximizing statin therapy after acute myocardial infarction are unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We assessed statin use at admission and discharge among 4340 acute myocardial infarction patients from 24 US hospitals (2005-2008). Hierarchical models estimated site variation in statin initiation in naïve patients, intensification in those undergoing submaximal therapy, and discharge on maximal therapy (defined as a statin with expected low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering ≥ 50%) after adjustment for patient factors, including low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level. Site variation was explored with a median rate ratio, which estimates the relative difference in risk ratios of 2 hypothetically identical patients at 2 different hospitals. Among statin-naïve patients, 87% without a contraindication were prescribed a statin, with no variability across sites (median rate ratio, 1.02). Among patients who arrived on submaximal statins, 26% had their statin therapy intensified, with modest site variability (median rate ratio, 1.47). Among all patients without a contraindication, 23% were discharged on maximal statin therapy, with substantial hospital variability (median rate ratio, 2.79).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large, multicenter acute myocardial infarction cohort, statin therapy was begun in nearly 90% of patients during hospitalization, with no variability across sites; however, rates of statin intensification and maximization were low and varied substantially across hospitals. Given that more intense statin therapy is associated with better outcomes, changing the existing performance measures to include the intensity of statin therapy may improve care.

Association between statin medications and mortality, major adverse cardiovascular event, and amputation-free survival in patients with critical limb ischemia

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the associations between statin use and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and amputation-free survival in critical limb ischemia (CLI) patients.

BACKGROUND

CLI is an advanced form of peripheral arterial disease associated with nonhealing arterial ulcers and high rates of MACCE and major amputation. Although statin medications are recommended for secondary prevention in peripheral arterial disease, their effectiveness in CLI is uncertain.

METHODS

We reviewed 380 CLI patients who underwent diagnostic angiography or therapeutic endovascular intervention from 2006 through 2012. Propensity scores and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to adjust for baseline differences between patients taking and not taking statins.

RESULTS

Statins were prescribed for 246 (65%) patients. The mean serum low-density lipoprotein (LDL) level was lower in patients prescribed statins (75 ± 28 mg/dl vs. 96 ± 40 mg/dl, p < 0.001). Patients prescribed statins had more baseline comorbidities including diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hypertension, as well as more extensive lower extremity disease (all p values <0.05). After propensity weighting, statin therapy was associated with lower 1-year rates of MACCE (stroke, myocardial infarction, or death; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28 to 0.99), mortality (HR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.97), and major amputation or death (HR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.98). Statin use was also associated with improved lesion patency among patients undergoing infrapopliteal angioplasty. Patients with LDL levels >130 mg/dl had increased HRs of MACCE and mortality compared with patients with lower levels of LDL.

CONCLUSIONS

Statins are associated with lower rates of mortality and MACCE and increased amputation-free survival in CLI patients.

Molecular sources of residual cardiovascular risk, clinical signals, and innovative solutions: relationship with subclinical disease, undertreatment, and poor adherence: implications of new evidence upon optimizing cardiovascular patient outcomes

Residual risk, the ongoing appreciable risk of major cardiovascular events (MCVE) in statin-treated patients who have achieved evidence-based lipid goals, remains a concern among cardiologists. Factors that contribute to this continuing risk are atherogenic non-low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles and atherogenic processes unrelated to LDL cholesterol, including other risk factors, the inherent properties of statin drugs, and patient characteristics, ie, genetics and behaviors. In addition, providers, health care systems, the community, public policies, and the environment play a role. Major statin studies suggest an average 28% reduction in LDL cholesterol and a 31% reduction in relative risk, leaving a residual risk of about 69%. Incomplete reductions in risk, and failure to improve conditions that create risk, may result in ongoing progression of atherosclerosis, with new and recurring lesions in original and distant culprit sites, remodeling, arrhythmias, rehospitalizations, invasive procedures, and terminal disability. As a result, identification of additional agents to reduce residual risk, particularly administered together with statin drugs, has been an ongoing quest. The current model of atherosclerosis involves many steps during which disease may progress independently of guideline-defined elevations in LDL cholesterol. Differences in genetic responsiveness to statin therapy, differences in ability of the endothelium to regenerate and repair, and differences in susceptibility to nonlipid risk factors, such as tobacco smoking, hypertension, and molecular changes associated with obesity and diabetes, may all create residual risk. A large number of inflammatory and metabolic processes may also provide eventual therapeutic targets to lower residual risk. Classically, epidemiologic and other evidence suggested that raising high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol would be cardioprotective. When LDL cholesterol is aggressively lowered to targets, low HDL cholesterol levels are still inversely related to MCVE. The efflux capacity, or ability to relocate cholesterol out of macrophages, is believed to be a major antiatherogenic mechanism responsible for reduction in MCVE mediated in part by healthy HDL. HDL cholesterol is a complex molecule with antioxidative, anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic, antiplatelet, and vasodilatory properties, among which is protection of LDL from oxidation. HDL-associated paraoxonase-1 has a major effect on endothelial function. Further, HDL promotes endothelial repair and progenitor cell health, and supports production of nitric oxide. HDL from patients with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and autoimmune disease may fail to protect or even become proinflammatory or pro-oxidant. Mendelian randomization and other clinical studies in which raising HDL cholesterol has not been beneficial suggest that high plasma levels do not necessarily reduce cardiovascular risk. These data, coupled with extensive preclinical information about the functional heterogeneity of HDL, challenge the "HDL hypothesis", ie, raising HDL cholesterol per se will reduce MCVE. After the equivocal AIM-HIGH (Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome With Low HDL/High Triglycerides: Impact on Global Health Outcomes) study and withdrawal of two major cholesteryl ester transfer protein compounds, one for off-target adverse effects and the other for lack of efficacy, development continues for two other agents, ie, anacetrapib and evacetrapib, both of which lower LDL cholesterol substantially. The negative but controversial HPS2-THRIVE (the Heart Protection Study 2-Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events) trial casts further doubt on the HDL cholesterol hypothesis. The growing impression that HDL functionality, rather than abundance, is clinically important is supported by experimental evidence highlighting the conditional pleiotropic actions of HDL. Non-HDL cholesterol reflects the cholesterol in all atherogenic particles containing apolipoprotein B, and has outperformed LDL cholesterol as a lipid marker of cardiovascular risk and future mortality. In addition to including a measure of residual risk, the advantages of using non-HDL cholesterol as a primary lipid target are now compelling. Reinterpretation of data from the Treating to New Targets study suggests that better control of smoking, body weight, hypertension, and diabetes will help lower residual risk. Although much improved, control of risk factors other than LDL cholesterol currently remains inadequate due to shortfalls in compliance with guidelines and poor patient adherence. More efficient and greater use of proven simple therapies, such as aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers, combined with statin therapy, may be more fruitful in improving outcomes than using other complex therapies. Comprehensive, intensive, multimechanistic, global, and national programs using primordial, primary, and secondary prevention to lower the total level of cardiovascular risk are necessary.

Prognostic value of cardiovascular disease status: the Leiden 85-plus study

This study aimed to explore the prognosis of very old people depending on their cardiovascular disease (CVD) history. This observational prospective cohort study included 570 participants aged 85 years from the general population with 5-year follow-up for morbidity, functional status, and mortality. At baseline, participants were assigned to three groups: no CVD history, "minor" CVD (angina pectoris, transient ischemic attack, intermittent claudication, and/or heart failure), or "major" CVD (myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, and/or arterial surgery). Follow-up data were collected on MI, stroke, functional status, and cause-specific mortality. The composite endpoint included cardiovascular events (MI or stroke) and cardiovascular mortality. At baseline, 270 (47.4 %) participants had no CVD history, 128 (22.4 %) had minor CVD, and 172 (30.2 %) had major CVD. Compared to the no CVD history group, the risk of the composite endpoint increased from 1.6 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.4) for the minor CVD group to 2.7 (95 % CI, 2.0-3.9) for the major CVD group. Similar trends were observed for cardiovascular and all-cause mortality risks. In a direct comparison, the major CVD group had a nearly doubled risk of the composite endpoint (hazard ratio, 1.8; 95 % CI, 1.2-2.7), compared to the minor CVD group. Both minor and major CVD were associated with an accelerated decline in cognitive function and accelerated increase of disability score (all p < 0.05), albeit most pronounced in participants with major CVD. CVD disease status in very old age is still of important prognostic value: a history of major CVD (mainly MI or stroke) leads to a nearly doubled risk of poor outcome, including cardiovascular events, functional decline, and mortality, compared with a history of minor CVD.