Association Between Pharmacy Proximity With Cardiovascular Medication Use and Risk Factor Control in the United States

BACKGROUND

Poor neighborhood-level access to health care, including community pharmacies, contributes to cardiovascular disparities in the United States. The authors quantified the association between pharmacy proximity, antihypertensive and statin use, and blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) among a large, diverse US cohort.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A cross-sectional analysis of Black and White participants in the REGARDS (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke) study during 2013 to 2016 was conducted. The authors designated pharmacy proximity by census tract using road network analysis with population-weighted centroids within a 10-minute drive time, with 5- and 20-minute sensitivity analyses. Pill bottle review measured medication use, and BP and LDL-C were assessed using standard methods. Poisson regression was used to quantify the association between pharmacy proximity with medication use and BP control, and linear regression for LDL-C. Among 16 150 REGARDS participants between 2013 and 2016, 8319 (51.5%) and 8569 (53.1%) had an indication for antihypertensive and statin medication, respectively, and pharmacy proximity data. The authors did not find a consistent association between living in a census tract with higher pharmacy proximity and antihypertensive medication use, BP control, or statin medication use and LDL-C levels, regardless of whether the area was rural, suburban, or urban. Results were similar among the 5- and 20-minute drive-time analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Living in a low pharmacy proximity census tract may be associated with antihypertensive and statin medication use, or with BP control and LDL-C levels. Although, in this US cohort, outcomes were similar for adults living in high or low pharmacy proximity census tracts.

New Users of Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker-Versus Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor-Based Antihypertensive Medication Regimens and Cardiovascular Disease Events: A Secondary Analysis of ACCORD-BP and SPRINT

BACKGROUND Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) block distinct components of the renin-angiotensin system. Whether this translates into differential effects on cardiovascular disease events remains unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS We used the ACCORD-BP (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes-Blood Pressure) trial and the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) to emulate target trials of new users of ARBs versus ACEIs on cardiovascular disease events (primary outcome) and death (secondary outcome). We estimated marginal cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and treatment-specific cumulative incidence functions with inverse probability of treatment weights. We identified 3298 new users of ARBs or ACEIs (ACCORD-BP: 374 ARB versus 884 ACEI; SPRINT: 727 ARB versus 1313 ACEI). For participants initiating ARBs versus ACEIs, the inverse probability of treatment weight rate of the primary outcome was 3.2 versus 3.5 per 100 person-years in ACCORD-BP (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.63-1.31]) and 1.8 versus 2.2 per 100 person-years in SPRINT (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.56-1.18]). There were no appreciable differences in pooled analyses, except that ARBs versus ACEIs were associated with a lower death rate (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.37-0.85]). ARBs were associated with a lower rate of the primary outcome among subgroups of male versus female participants, non-Hispanic Black versus non-Hispanic White participants, and those randomly assigned to standard versus intensive blood pressure (Pinteraction: <0.01, 0.05, and <0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS In this secondary analysis of ACCORD-BP and SPRINT, new users of ARB- versus ACEI-based antihypertensive medication regimens experienced similar cardiovascular disease events rates, with important subgroup differences and lower rates of death overall. REGISTRATION URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01206062, NCT00000620.

Estimated Population Health Benefits of Intensive Systolic Blood Pressure Treatment Among SPRINT-Eligible US Adults

BACKGROUND

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) demonstrated an intensive (<120 mm Hg) vs. standard (<140 mm Hg) systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal lowered cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Estimating the effect of intensive SBP lowering among SPRINT-eligible adults most likely to benefit can guide implementation efforts.

METHODS

We studied SPRINT participants and SPRINT-eligible participants in the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study and National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). A published algorithm of predicted CVD benefit with intensive SBP treatment was used to categorize participants into low, medium, or high predicted benefit. CVD event rates were estimated with intensive and standard treatment.

RESULTS

Median age was 67.0, 72.0, and 64.0 years in SPRINT, SPRINT-eligible REGARDS, and SPRINT-eligible NHANES participants, respectively. The proportion with high predicted benefit was 33.0% in SPRINT, 39.0% in SPRINT-eligible REGARDS, and 23.5% in SPRINT-eligible NHANES. The estimated difference in CVD event rate (standard minus intensive) was 7.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.4-10.7), 8.4 (95% CI 8.2-8.5), and 6.1 (95% CI 5.9-6.3) per 1,000 person-years in SPRINT, SPRINT-eligible REGARDS participants, and SPRINT-eligible NHANES participants, respectively (median 3.2-year follow-up). Intensive SBP treatment could prevent 84,300 (95% CI 80,800-87,920) CVD events per year in 14.1 million SPRINT-eligible US adults; 29,400 and 28,600 would be in 7.0 million individuals with medium or high predicted benefit, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the population health benefit from intensive SBP goals could be achieved by treating those characterized by a previously published algorithm as having medium or high predicted benefit.

Antihypertensive Medication Regimens Used by US Adults With Hypertension and the Potential for Fixed-Dose Combination Products: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2015 to 2020

Background Fixed-dose combination (FDC) antihypertensive products improve blood pressure control and adherence among patients with hypertension. It is unknown to what degree commercially available FDC products meet the current hypertension management prescription patterns in the United States. Methods and Results This cross-sectional analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2015 to March 2020 included participants with hypertension taking ≥2 antihypertensive medications (N=2451). After constructing each participant's regimen according to antihypertensive classes used, we estimated the extent to which the 7 class-level FDC regimens available in the United States as of January 2023 would match the regimens used. Among a weighted population of 34.1 million US adults (mean age, 66.0 years; 52.8% women; 69.1% non-Hispanic White race and ethnicity), the proportions using 2, 3, 4, and ≥5 antihypertensive classes were 60.6%, 28.2%, 9.1%, and 1.6%, respectively. The 7 FDC regimens were among 189 total regimens used (3.7%), and 39.2% of the population used one of the FDC regimens (95% CI, 35.5%-43.0%; 13.4 million US adults); 60.8% of the population (95% CI, 57.0%-64.5%; 20.7 million US adults) were using a regimen not available as a class-equivalent FDC product. Conclusions Three in 5 US adults with hypertension taking ≥2 antihypertensive classes are using a regimen that is not commercially available as a class-equivalent FDC product as of January 2023. To maximize the potential benefit of FDCs to improve medication adherence (and thus blood pressure control) among patients taking multiple antihypertensive medications, use of FDC-compatible regimens and improvements in the product landscape are needed.

Factors associated with antihypertensive monotherapy among US adults with treated hypertension and uncontrolled blood pressure overall and by race/ethnicity, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013-2018

BACKGROUND

Treating hypertension with antihypertensive medications combinations, rather than one medication (ie, monotherapy), is underused in the United States, particularly in certain race/ethnic groups. Identifying factors associated with monotherapy use despite uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) overall and within race/ethnic groups may elucidate intervention targets in under-treated populations.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES; 2013-2014 through 2017-2018). We included participants age ≥20 years with hypertension, taking at least one antihypertensive medication, and uncontrolled BP (systolic BP [SBP] ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic BP [DBP] ≥ 90 mmHg). Demographic, clinical, and healthcare-access factors associated with antihypertensive monotherapy were determined using multivariable-adjusted Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Among 1,597 participants with hypertension and uncontrolled BP, age- and sex- adjusted prevalence of monotherapy was 42.6% overall, 45.4% among non-Hispanic White, 31.9% among non-Hispanic Black, 39.6% among Hispanic, and 50.9% among non-Hispanic Asian adults. Overall, higher SBP was associated with higher monotherapy use, while older age, having a healthcare visit in the previous year, higher body mass index, and having heart failure were associated with lower monotherapy use.

CONCLUSION

Clinical and healthcare-access factors, including a healthcare visit within the previous year and co-morbid conditions were associated with a higher likelihood of combination antihypertensive therapy.

Abstract 02: Distribution Of Predicted Cardiovascular And All-cause Mortality Benefit Of Intensive Vs Standard Blood Pressure Control Among Us Adults Eligible For The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial

Introduction: If resources are scarce, achieving national SBP control goals will require prioritizing treatment among those likely to benefit. To identify patients with greatest predicted benefit with intensive SBP treatment and estimate population sizes, we applied algorithms to community samples who met the SPRINT enrollment criteria.

Methods: The published algorithms separately predict the absolute risk reduction in CVD events and mortality at 3.26 years with intensive (<120 mm Hg) vs standard (<140 mm Hg) SBP lowering. We applied and calibrated the algorithms to SPRINT standard arm participants (n=4 399) and samples meeting SPRINT enrollment criteria from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, n=1 297) and the Reasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS, n=2 785). Predicted absolute risk reduction estimated number needed to treat (NNT), categorized as <50, 50-100, and ≥100. Observed 3.26 year CVD event (SPRINT, REGARDS) and mortality rates (all cohorts) were calculated.

Results: The median ages were 67 (SPRINT), 69 (NHANES), and 72 (REGARDS). Greater proportions of NHANES and REGARDS vs SPRINT had predicted NNT <100 for CVD events (NHANES 94.8%, REGARDS 99.2%, SPRINT 87.8%) and mortality (NHANES 64.3%, REGARDS 63.7%, SPRINT 38.8%) ( Table ). Event rates were comparable within NNT groups.

Conclusions: Predicted NNT distributions differ between cohorts but event rates are similar. Most adults who meet SPRINT enrollment criteria have predicted NNT <100 for CVD and mortality with intensive SBP treatment. These results suggest that published algorithms can identify those most likely to benefit and can guide implementation.