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.

Cost of Cardiovascular Disease Event and Cardiovascular Disease Treatment-Related Complication Hospitalizations in the United States

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is among the costliest conditions in the United States, and cost-effectiveness analyses can be used to assess economic impact and prioritize CVD treatments. We aimed to develop standardized, nationally representative CVD events and selected possible CVD treatment-related complication hospitalization costs for use in cost-effectiveness analyses.

METHODS

Nationally representative costs were derived using publicly available inpatient hospital discharge data from the 2012-2018 National Inpatient Sample. Events were identified using the principal International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes. Facility charges were converted to costs using charge-to-cost ratios, and total costs were estimated by applying a published professional fee ratio. All costs are reported in 2021 US dollars. Mean costs were estimated for events overall and stratified by age, sex, and survival status at discharge. Annual costs to the US health care system were estimated by multiplying the mean annual number of events by the mean total cost per discharge.

RESULTS

The annual mean number of hospital discharges among CVD events was the highest for heart failure (1 087 000 per year) and cerebrovascular disease (800 600 per year). The mean cost per hospital discharge was the highest for peripheral vascular disease ($33 700 [95% CI, $33 300-$34 000]) and ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation ($32 500 [95% CI, $32 100-$32 900]). Hospitalizations contributing the most to annual US health care costs were heart failure ($19 500 [95% CI, $19 300-$19 800] million) and acute myocardial infarction ($18 300, [95% CI, $18 200-$18 500] million). Acute kidney injury was the most frequent possible treatment complication (515 000 per year), and bradycardia had the highest mean hospitalization costs ($17 400 [95% CI, $17 200-$17 500]).

CONCLUSIONS

The hospitalization cost estimates and statistical code reported in the current study have the potential to increase transparency and comparability of cost-effectiveness analyses for CVD in the United States.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor use among adults with diabetes mellitus by cardiovascular-kidney disease risk: National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 2015-2020

Objective

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2Is) lower adverse cardiac and kidney events among high-risk patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and are now guideline-recommended as first-line therapy alongside metformin. However, the adoption of these new treatments from 2015 to 2020 among the highest-risk adults with DM remains unclear.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) 2015-2020 to estimate the use of GLP1-RAs and SGLT2Is among adults with DM overall and by level of cardiovascular and kidney risk (CKR). We defined high CKR by history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), heart failure, or age ≥55 years with at least 2 ASCVD risk factors (i.e., obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, or current smoker).

Results

Overall, 2,432 participants with DM (mean age 60.6 years, 46.8 % female, 58.8 % Non-Hispanic White) were included, of which 1,869 and 563 were with and without high CKR, respectively. Participants with vs. without high CKR were more likely to be older, have higher systolic blood pressure, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, use oral antidiabetic agents, and have health insurance. Overall, the weighted prevalence of GLP1-RA or SGLT2I was 9.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 6.9-11.0): 4.8 % (95 % CI 3.6-6.1) took GLP1-RAs, and 5.1 % (95 % CI 3.3-7.0) took SGLT2Is. Use of GLP1-RAs or SGLT2Is did not differ between participants with vs. without high CKR (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 1.00; 95 % CI 0.98-1.02). Participants with ASCVD were more likely to be on a GLP1-RA or SGLT2I (aPR 1.28; 95 % CI 1.25-1.31), while adults with CKD were less likely (aPR 0.84; 95 % CI 0.82-0.86).

Conclusion

Among US adults with DM, GLP1-RA and SGLT2I use was low regardless of CKR. Data since 2020 analyzing the utilization of GLP1-RAs and SGLT2Is among high-CKR patients with DM is needed to identify implementation strategies for increased utilization.

Association Between Self-Reported Medication Adherence and Therapeutic Inertia in Hypertension: A Secondary Analysis of SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial)

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic inertia (TI), failure to intensify antihypertensive medication when blood pressure (BP) is above goal, remains prevalent in hypertension management. The degree to which self-reported antihypertensive adherence is associated with TI with intensive BP goals remains unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Cross-sectional analysis was performed of the 12-month visit of participants in the intensive arm of SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), which randomized adults to intensive (<120 mm Hg) versus standard (<140 mm Hg) systolic BP goals. TI was defined as no increase in antihypertensive regimen intensity score, which incorporates medication number and dose, when systolic BP is ≥120 mm Hg. Self-reported adherence was assessed using the 8-Item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) and categorized as low (MMAS-8 score <6), medium (MMAS-8 score 6 to <8), and high (MMAS-8 score 8). Poisson regressions estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% CIs for TI associated with MMAS-8. Among 1009 intensive arm participants with systolic BP >120 mm Hg at the 12-month visit (mean age, 69.6 years; 35.2% female, 28.8% non-Hispanic Black), TI occurred in 50.8% of participants. Participants with low adherence (versus high) were younger and more likely to be non-Hispanic Black or smokers. The prevalence of TI among patients with low, medium, and high adherence was 45.0%, 53.5%, and 50.4%, respectively. After adjustment, neither low nor medium adherence (versus high) were associated with TI (PR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.87-1.42]; PR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.84-1.38], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Although clinician uncertainty about adherence is often cited as a reason for why antihypertensive intensification is withheld when above BP goals, we observed no evidence of an association between self-reported adherence and TI.

Effectiveness of Hypertension Management Strategies in SPRINT-Eligible US Adults: A Simulation Study

BACKGROUND

Despite reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and death in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), intensive systolic blood pressure goals have not been adopted in the United States. This study aimed to simulate the potential long-term impact of 4 hypertension management strategies in SPRINT-eligible US adults.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The validated Blood Pressure Control-Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model, a discrete event simulation of hypertension care processes (ie, visit frequency, blood pressure [BP] measurement accuracy, medication intensification, and medication adherence) and CVD outcomes, was populated with 25 000 SPRINT-eligible US adults. Four hypertension management strategies were simulated: (1) usual care targeting BP <140/90 mm Hg (Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure usual care), (2) intensive care per the SPRINT protocol targeting BP <120/90 mm Hg (SPRINT intensive), (3) usual care targeting guideline-recommended BP <130/80 mm Hg (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association usual care), and (4) team-based care added to usual care and targeting BP <130/80 mm Hg. Relative to the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure usual care, among the 18.1 million SPRINT-eligible US adults, an estimated 138 100 total CVD events could be prevented per year with SPRINT intensive, 33 900 with American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association usual care, and 89 100 with team-based care. Compared with the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure usual care, SPRINT intensive care was projected to increase treatment-related serious adverse events by 77 600 per year, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association usual care by 33 300, and team-based care by 27 200.

CONCLUSIONS

As BP control has declined in recent years, health systems must prioritize hypertension management and invest in effective strategies. Adding team-based care to usual care may be a pragmatic way to manage risk in this high-CVD-risk population.

Cost-Effectiveness of Icosapent Ethyl in REDUCE-IT USA: Results From Patients Randomized in the United States

BACKGROUND

In 3146 REDUCE-IT USA (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl Intervention Trial USA) participants, icosapent ethyl (IPE) reduced first and total cardiovascular events by 31% and 36%, respectively, over 4.9 years of follow-up.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We used participant-level data from REDUCE-IT USA, 2021 US costs, and IPE costs ranging from $4.59 to $11.48 per day, allowing us to examine a range of possible medication costs. The in-trial analysis was participant-level, whereas the lifetime analysis used a Markov model. Both analyses considered value from a US health sector perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental costs divided by incremental quality-adjusted life-years) of IPE compared with standard care (SC) was the primary outcome measure. There was incremental gain in quality-adjusted life-years with IPE compared with SC using in-trial (3.28 versus 3.13) and lifetime (10.36 versus 9.83) horizons. Using an IPE cost of $4.59 per day, health care costs were lower with IPE compared with SC for both in-trial ($29 420 versus $30 947) and lifetime ($216 243 versus $219 212) analyses. IPE versus SC was a dominant strategy in trial and over the lifetime, with 99.7% lifetime probability of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. At a medication cost of $11.48 per day, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was $36 208 in trial and $9582 over the lifetime.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis, at $4.59 per day, IPE offers better outcomes than SC at lower costs in trial and over a lifetime and is cost-effective at $11.48 per day for conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds. Treatment with IPE should be strongly considered in US patients like those enrolled in REDUCE-IT USA.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01492361.

Patterns, Prognostic Implications, and Rural-Urban Disparities in Optimal GDMT Following HFrEF Diagnosis Among Medicare Beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Patterns and disparities in guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) uptake for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) across rural vs urban regions are not well described.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate patterns, prognostic implications, and rural-urban differences in GDMT use among Medicare beneficiaries following new-onset HFrEF.

METHODS

Patients with a diagnosis of new-onset HFrEF in a 5% Medicare sample with available data for Part D medication use were identified from January 2015 through December 2020. The primary exposure was residence in rural vs urban zip codes. Optimal triple GDMT was defined as ≥50% of the target daily dose of beta-blockers, ≥50% of the target daily dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blocker or any dose of sacubitril/valsartan, and any dose of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. The association between the achievement of optimal GDMT over time following new-onset HFrEF diagnosis and risk of all-cause mortality and subsequent HF hospitalization was also evaluated using adjusted Cox models. The association between living in rural vs urban location and time to optimal GDMT achievement over a 12-month follow-up was assessed using cumulative incidence curves and adjusted Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models.

RESULTS

A total of 41,296 patients (age: 76.7 years; 15.0% Black; 27.6% rural) were included. Optimal GDMT use over the 12-month follow-up was low, with 22.5% initiated on any dose of triple GDMT and 9.1% on optimal GDMT doses. Optimal GDMT on follow-up was significantly associated with a lower risk of death (HR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.85-0.94]; P < 0.001) and subsequent HF hospitalization (HR: 0.93 [95% CI: 0.87-0.98]; P = 0.02). Optimal GDMT use at 12 months was significantly lower among patients living in rural (vs urban) areas (8.4% vs 9.3%; P = 0.02). In adjusted analysis, living in rural (vs urban) locations was associated with a significantly lower probability of achieving optimal GDMT (HR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.86-0.98]; P = 0.01 Differences in optimal GDMT use following HFrEF diagnosis accounted for 16% of excess mortality risk among patients living in rural (vs urban) areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of optimal GDMT following new-onset HFrEF diagnosis is low, with substantially lower use noted among patients living in rural vs urban locations. Suboptimal GDMT use following new-onset HFrEF was associated with an increased risk of mortality and subsequent HF hospitalization.

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.

Age-based disparities in statin use for primary prevention in US adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2013-2020

Statin use among younger adults at high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk compared with older adults at the same risk is unclear. We determined prevalent statin use by 10-year ASCVD risk and age among US participants aged 40-75 eligible for risk-indicated primary prevention statins from the 2013-2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey cycles. Among 3,503 participants, statin use by ASCVD risk (5-<7.5%, 7.5-<20%, and ≥20%) was 9.4%, 9.0%, and 12.2% among those age 40-54 compared to 22.0%, 23.9%, and 14.3% among adults 55-64 years and 39.3%, 33.6%, and 38.1% age 65-75 years. After adjusting for sociodemographic and healthcare access, the prevalence ratio (vs. 65-75 years) for statin use among adults with an ASCVD risk of 7.5-<20% age 40-54 years was 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39,0.41) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.87,0.88) for adults 55-64 years. Among high ASCVD-risk adults aged 40-75 years, primary prevention statin use was lower among adults <65 years despite similar ASCVD risk as older adults.

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.

Single-Pill Combination Product Availability of the Antihypertensive Regimens Used for Intensive Systolic Blood Pressure Treatment in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial

BACKGROUND

Single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive products improve blood pressure control and medication adherence among patients with hypertension. It is unknown to what degree commercially available SPC products could be used to target an intensive systolic blood pressure goal of <120 mm Hg.

METHODS

This cross-sectional analysis included participants randomized to the intensive treatment arm (goal systolic blood pressure <120 mm Hg) of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) using ≥2 antihypertensive medication classes at the 12-month postrandomization visit. Antihypertensive medication data were collected using pill bottle review by research coordinators, and regimens were categorized by the unique combinations of antihypertensive classes. We calculated the proportion of regimens used, which are commercially available as one of the 7 SPC class combinations in the United States as of January 2023.

RESULTS

Among the 3833 SPRINT intensive arm participants included (median age, 67.0 years; 35.5% female), participants were using 219 unique antihypertensive regimens. The 7 regimens for which there are class-equivalent SPC products were used by 40.3% of participants. Only 3.2% of all medication class regimens used are available as a class-equivalent SPC product (7/219). There are no SPC products available with 4 or more medication classes, which were used by 1060 participants (27.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most SPRINT participants in the intensive arm used an antihypertensive medication regimen, which is not commercially available as a class equivalent SPC product. To achieve the SPRINT results in real-world settings, maximize the potential benefit of SPCs, and reduce pill burden, improvements in the product landscape are needed.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/ct2/show/NCT01206062; Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Evidence for Age Bias Contributing to Therapeutic Inertia in Blood Pressure Management: A Secondary Analysis of SPRINT

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence supporting the cardiovascular and cognitive benefits of intensive blood pressure management, older adults have the lowest rates of blood pressure control. We determined the association between age and therapeutic inertia (TI) in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), and whether frailty, cognitive function, or gait speed moderate or mediate these associations.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of SPRINT of participant visits with blood pressure above randomized treatment goal. We categorized baseline age as <60, 60 to <70, 70 to <80, and ≥80 years and TI as no antihypertensive medication intensification per participant visit. Generalized estimating equations generated odds ratios for TI associated with age, stratified by treatment group based on nested models adjusted for baseline frailty index score (fit [frailty index, ≤0.10], less fit [0.10

RESULTS

Participants 60 to <70, 70 to <80, and ≥80 years of age had a higher prevalence of TI in both treatment groups versus participants <60 years of age (standard: 59.7%, 60.5%, and 60.1% versus 56.0%; 29 527 participant visits; intensive: 55.1%, 57.2%, and 57.8% versus 53.8%; 47 129 participant visits). The adjusted odds ratios for TI comparing participants ≥80 versus <60 years of age were 1.32 (95% CI, 1.14-1.53) and 1.25 (95% CI, 1.11-1.41) in the standard and intensive treatment groups, respectively. Adjustment for frailty, cognitive function, or gait speed did not attenuate the association or demonstrate effect modification (all Pinteraction, >0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Older age is associated with greater TI independent of physical or cognitive function, implying age bias in hypertension management.

Collapse

Key Words

• frailty
• functional status
• goals
• hypertension
• odds ratio

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Aged
• Aged, 80 and over
• Humans
• Middle Aged
• Antihypertensive Agents/therapeutic use
• Antihypertensive Agents/pharmacology
• Blood Pressure/physiology
• Frailty/diagnosis
• Frailty/epidemiology
• Hypertension/diagnosis
• Hypertension/drug therapy
• Hypertension/epidemiology
• Risk Factors

Collapse

Grants

• K01 HL133468 NHLBI NIH HHS
• K24 AG080168 NIA NIH HHS
• K01 MD014158 NIMHD NIH HHS
• R01 AG065805 NIA NIH HHS
• R01 AG055606 NIA NIH HHS
• R38 HL143605 NHLBI NIH HHS
• R01 HL139837 NHLBI NIH HHS

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Alexander R Zheutlin Department of Internal Medicine (A.R.Z.), Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
Daniel K Addo Intermountain Healthcare Department of Population Health Sciences (D.K.A., J.A.J., C.G.D., J.S.H., T.G., A.P.B.), Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
Joshua A Jacobs Intermountain Healthcare Department of Population Health Sciences (D.K.A., J.A.J., C.G.D., J.S.H., T.G., A.P.B.), Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
Catherine G Derington Intermountain Healthcare Department of Population Health Sciences (D.K.A., J.A.J., C.G.D., J.S.H., T.G., A.P.B.), Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
Jennifer S Herrick Intermountain Healthcare Department of Population Health Sciences (D.K.A., J.A.J., C.G.D., J.S.H., T.G., A.P.B.), Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City Informatics, Decision-Enhancement, and Analytic Sciences Center, Veterans Affairs, Salt Lake City Health Care System, Utah (J.S.H., A.P.B.)
Tom Greene Intermountain Healthcare Department of Population Health Sciences (D.K.A., J.A.J., C.G.D., J.S.H., T.G., A.P.B.), Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
Eric L Stulberg Department of Neurology (E.L.S.), Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
Dan R Berlowitz Department of Public Health, University of Massachusetts-Lowell (D.R.B.)
Jeff D Williamson Section on Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine (J.D.W.), Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC
Nicholas M Pajewski Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, Division of Public Health Sciences (N.M.P.), Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC
Mark A Supiano Geriatrics Division, Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine, University of Utah Center on Aging, Salt Lake City (M.A.S.)
Adam P Bress Intermountain Healthcare Department of Population Health Sciences (D.K.A., J.A.J., C.G.D., J.S.H., T.G., A.P.B.), Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City Informatics, Decision-Enhancement, and Analytic Sciences Center, Veterans Affairs, Salt Lake City Health Care System, Utah (J.S.H., A.P.B.)

Collapse

Discontinuation of Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors During the Early Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

In March and April 2020, medical societies published statements recommending continued use of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors despite theoretical concerns that these medications could increase COVID-19 severity. Determining if patients discontinued RAS inhibitors during the COVID-19 pandemic could inform responses to future public health emergencies.

METHODS

We analyzed claims data from US adults with health insurance in the Marketscan database. We identified patients who filled a RAS inhibitor and were persistent, defined by not having a ≥30-day gap without medication available, and high adherence, defined by having medication available on ≥80% of days, from March 2019 to February 2020. Among these patients, we estimated the proportion who discontinued their RAS inhibitor (i.e., had ≥30 consecutive days without a RAS inhibitor available to take) between March and August 2020. For comparison, we estimated the proportion of patients that discontinued a RAS inhibitor between March and August 2019 after being persistent with high adherence from March 2018 to February 2019.

RESULTS

Among 816,380 adults who were persistent and adherent to a RAS inhibitor from March 2019 to February 2020, 10.8% discontinued this medication between March and August 2020. Among 822,873 adults who were persistent and adherent to a RAS inhibitor from March 2018 to February 2019, 11.7% discontinued this medication between March and August 2019. The multivariable-adjusted relative risk for RAS inhibitor discontinuation in 2020 vs. 2019 was 0.94 (95% CI 0.93-0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence of an increase in RAS inhibitor discontinuation during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

Hypertension Statistics for US Adults: An Open-Source Web Application for Analysis and Visualization of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Data

BACKGROUND

Data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey are freely available and can be analyzed to produce hypertension statistics for the noninstitutionalized US population. The analysis of these data requires statistical programming expertise and knowledge of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey methodology.

METHODS

We developed a web-based application that provides hypertension statistics for US adults using 10 cycles of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, 1999 to 2000 through 2017 to 2020. We validated the application by reproducing results from prior publications. The application's interface allows users to estimate crude and age-adjusted means, quantiles, and proportions. Population counts can also be estimated. To demonstrate the application's capabilities, we estimated hypertension statistics for noninstitutionalized US adults.

RESULTS

The estimated mean systolic blood pressure (BP) declined from 123 mm Hg in 1999 to 2000 to 120 mm Hg in 2009 to 2010 and increased to 123 mm Hg in 2017 to 2020. The age-adjusted prevalence of hypertension (ie, systolic BP≥130 mm Hg, diastolic BP≥80 mm Hg or self-reported antihypertensive medication use) was 47.9% in 1999 to 2000, 43.0% in 2009 to 2010, and 44.7% in 2017 to 2020. In 2017 to 2020, an estimated 115.3 million US adults had hypertension. The age-adjusted prevalence of controlled BP, defined by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association BP guideline, among nonpregnant US adults with hypertension was 9.7% in 1999 to 2000, 25.0% in 2013 to 2014, and 21.9% in 2017 to 2020. After age adjustment and among nonpregnant US adults who self-reported taking antihypertensive medication, 27.5%, 48.5%, and 43.0% had controlled BP in 1999 to 2000, 2013 to 2014, and 2017 to 2020, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The application developed in the current study is publicly available at https://bcjaeger.shinyapps.io/nhanesShinyBP/ and produced valid, transparent and reproducible results.

Identifying Patients for Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment Based on Cognitive Benefit: A Secondary Analysis of the SPRINT Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Intensive vs standard treatment to lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduces risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia; however, the magnitude of cognitive benefit likely varies among patients.

Objective

To estimate the magnitude of cognitive benefit of intensive vs standard systolic BP (SBP) treatment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this ad hoc secondary analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), 9361 randomized clinical trial participants 50 years or older with high cardiovascular risk but without a history of diabetes, stroke, or dementia were followed up. The SPRINT trial was conducted between November 1, 2010, and August 31, 2016, and the present analysis was completed on October 31, 2022.

Intervention

Systolic blood pressure treatment to an intensive (<120 mm Hg) vs standard (<140 mm Hg) target.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was a composite of adjudicated probable dementia or amnestic MCI.

Results

A total of 7918 SPRINT participants were included in the analysis; 3989 were in the intensive treatment group (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [9.2] years; 2570 [64.4%] men; 1212 [30.4%] non-Hispanic Black) and 3929 were in the standard treatment group (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [9.4] years; 2570 [65.4%] men; 1249 [31.8%] non-Hispanic Black). Over a median follow-up of 4.13 (IQR, 3.50-5.88) years, there were 765 and 828 primary outcome events in the intensive treatment group and standard treatment group, respectively. Older age (hazard ratio [HR] per 1 SD, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.78-1.96]), Medicare enrollment (HR per 1 SD, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.35-1.49]), and higher baseline serum creatinine level (HR per 1 SD, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.19-1.29]) were associated with higher risk of the primary outcome, while better baseline cognitive functioning (HR per 1 SD, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.41-0.44]) and active employment status (HR per 1 SD, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.42-0.46]) were associated with lower risk of the primary outcome. Risk of the primary outcome by treatment goal was estimated accurately based on similar projected and observed absolute risk differences (C statistic = 0.79). Higher baseline risk for the primary outcome was associated with greater benefit (ie, larger absolute reduction of probable dementia or amnestic MCI) of intensive vs standard treatment across the full range of estimated baseline risk.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this secondary analysis of the SPRINT trial, participants with higher baseline projected risk of probable dementia or amnestic MCI gained greater absolute cognitive benefit from intensive vs standard SBP treatment in a monotonic fashion.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Prevalence of Statin Use for Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease by Race, Ethnicity, and 10-Year Disease Risk in the US: National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 2013 to March 2020

Importance

The burden of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in the US is higher among Black and Hispanic vs White adults. Inclusion of race in guidance for statin indication may lead to decreased disparities in statin use.

Objective

To evaluate prevalence of primary prevention statin use by race and ethnicity according to 10-year ASCVD risk.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This serial, cross-sectional analysis performed in May 2022 used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a nationally representative sample of health status in the US, from 2013 to March 2020 (limited cycle due to the COVID-19 pandemic), to evaluate statin use for primary prevention of ASCVD and to estimate 10-year ASCVD risk. Participants aged 40 to 75 years without ASCVD, diabetes, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels 190 mg/dL or greater, and with data on medication use were included.

Exposures

Self-identified race and ethnicity (Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White) and 10-year ASCVD risk category (5%-<7.5%, 7.5%-<20%, ≥20%).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Prevalence of statin use, defined as identification of statin use on pill bottle review.

Results

A total of 3417 participants representing 39.4 million US adults after applying sampling weights (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [8.0] years; 1289 women [weighted percentage, 37.8%] and 2128 men [weighted percentage, 62.2%]; 329 Asian [weighted percentage, 4.2%], 1032 Black [weighted percentage, 12.7%], 786 Hispanic [weighted percentage, 10.1%], and 1270 White [weighted percentage, 73.0%]) were included. Compared with White participants, statin use was lower in Black and Hispanic participants and comparable among Asian participants in the overall cohort (Asian, 25.5%; Black, 20.0%; Hispanic, 15.4%; White, 27.9%) and within ASCVD risk strata. Within each race and ethnicity group, a graded increase in statin use was observed across increasing ASCVD risk strata. Statin use was low in the highest risk stratum overall with significantly lower rates of use among Black (23.8%; prevalence ratio [PR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98 vs White) and Hispanic participants (23.9%; PR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-0.99 vs White). Among other factors, routine health care access and health insurance were significantly associated with higher statin use in Black, Hispanic, and White adults. Prevalence of statin use did not meaningfully change over time by race and ethnicity or by ASCVD risk stratum.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, statin use for primary prevention of ASCVD was low among all race and ethnicity groups regardless of ASCVD risk, with the lowest use occurring among Black and Hispanic adults. Improvements in access to care may promote equitable use of primary prevention statins in Black and Hispanic adults.

Antihypertensive Medication Regimens Used in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial

BACKGROUND

Describing the antihypertensive medication regimens used in the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) would contextualize the standard and intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) interventions and may inform future implementation efforts to achieve population-wide intensive SBP goals.

METHODS

We included SPRINT participants with complete medication data at the prerandomization and 12-month visits. Regimens were categorized by antihypertensive medication class. Analyses were stratified by treatment group (standard goal SBP <140 mm Hg versus intensive goal SBP <120 mm Hg).

RESULTS

Among 7860 participants (83.7% of 9361 randomized), the median number of classes used at the prerandomization visit was 2.0 and 2.0 in the standard and intensive groups (P=0.559). At 12-months, the median number of classes used was 3.0 and 2.0 in the intensive and standard groups (P<0.001). Prerandomization, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE), or angiotensin-II receptor blocker (ARB) monotherapy was the most common regimen in the intensive and standard groups (12.6% versus 12.2%). At 12-months, ACE/ARB monotherapy was still the most common regimen among standard group participants (14.7%) and was used by 5.3% of intensive group participants. Multidrug regimens used by the intensive and standard participants at 12 months were as follows: an ACE/ARB with thiazide (12.2% and 7.9%); an ACE/ARB with calcium channel blocker (6.2% and 6.8%); an ACE/ARB, thiazide, and calcium channel blocker (11.4% and 4.3%); and an ACE/ARB, thiazide, calcium channel blocker, and beta-blocker (6.5% and 1.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

SPRINT investigators favored combining ACEs or ARBs, thiazide diuretics, and calcium channel blockers to target SBP <120 mm Hg, compared to ACE/ARB monotherapy to target SBP <140 mm Hg.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Systolic Blood Pressure Time in Target Range and Major Adverse Kidney and Cardiovascular Events

BACKGROUND

Whether time-in-target range (TTR) for systolic blood pressure (SBP) associates with adverse kidney and cardiovascular events remains incompletely understood.

METHODS

This study included participants in 2 clinical trials that compared intensive (<120 mm Hg) and standard (<140 mm Hg) SBP lowering. SBP-TTR for months 0 to 3 was calculated using therapeutic ranges of 110 to 130 mm Hg and 120 to 140 mm Hg for the intensive and standard arms, respectively. Adverse kidney events included the composite of dialysis, kidney transplant, serum creatinine >3.3 mg/dL, sustained eGFR <15 mL/(min·1.73 m2), or sustained eGFR decline >40%. Adverse cardiovascular events included myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and cardiovascular death. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate the association between SBP-TTR and kidney and cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

Participants with higher TTR were younger and less likely to have preexisting cardiovascular disease. Compared with participants with TTR of 0%, the risk of adverse kidney events was lower for participants with TTR of >0% to 43% (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.57 [0.42-0.76]; P<0.001), 43% to <70% (0.57 [0.42-0.78]; P=0.001), 70% to <100% (0.53 [0.38-0.74]; P<0.001), and 100% (0.33 [0.20-0.57]; P<0.001) in fully adjusted models. The risk of major adverse cardiovascular events was lower for participants with TTR of >0% to 43% (0.66 [0.52-0.83]; P=0.001), 43% to <70% (0.70 [0.55-0.90]; P=0.005), 70% to <100% (0.65 [0.50-0.84]; P=0.001), or 100% (0.56 [0.39-0.80]; P=0.001) compared with those with TTR of 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher SBP-TTR associates with lower risks of adverse kidney and cardiovascular events in adults with hypertension. SBP-TTR may be a potential therapeutic target and quality metric.

Association of New Use of Antihypertensives That Stimulate vs Inhibit Type 2 and 4 Angiotensin II Receptors With Dementia Among Medicare Beneficiaries

Importance

Prevalent use of antihypertensive medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, compared with those that do not stimulate these receptors, has been associated with a lower risk of dementia. However, previous studies were limited by inclusion of individuals with prevalent hypertension and a history of antihypertensive use prior to the start of the study, which can introduce bias.

Objective

To examine the association of new use of antihypertensive medication regimens that stimulate vs inhibit type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) among Medicare beneficiaries.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study was conducted among 57 773 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries (January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2018) aged 65 years or older with incident hypertension. Data analysis was conducted from January 1 through June 30, 2022.

Exposures

Initiation of antihypertensive medication regimens that stimulate or inhibit type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, or mixed regimens (both stimulating and inhibiting), with the time-dependent measure being each 30-day interval.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of ADRD (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse definition). Cox proportional hazards regression modeling with time-dependent variables was performed to estimate the association between time-dependent treatment groups and time to ADRD, after adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.

Results

The sample included 57 773 Medicare beneficiaries (36 348 women [62.9%]; mean [SD] age, 73.8 [6.3] years; 2954 [5.1%] Black, 1545 [2.7%] Hispanic; 50 184 [86.9%] White, and 3090 [5.4%] Other individuals [the Other category included individuals of American Indian, Asian, other, or unknown race and ethnicity]). During a median of 6.9 years (IQR, 4.7-9.3 years) of follow-up, the unadjusted incidence density rate of ADRD was 2.2 cases per 100 person-years (95% CI, 2.1-2.4 cases per 100 person-years) for the group receiving regimens that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors compared with 3.1 cases per 100 person-years (95% CI, 3.0-3.2 cases per 100 person-years) for the group receiving regimens that inhibit type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors and 2.7 cases per 100 person-years (95% CI, 2.6-2.9 cases per 100 person-years) for the group receiving mixed treatment regimens. In adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression modeling, stimulating treatment was associated with a statistically significant 16% reduction in the hazard of ADRD compared with inhibiting treatment (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.90). Mixed regimen use was also associated with reduced hazards of ADRD compared with the inhibiting group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.96).

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries suggests that use of antihypertensive medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors was associated with lower risk of ADRD compared with antihypertensive medications that inhibit these receptors. Confirmation is needed in a randomized trial.

Lipid-Lowering Therapy Use and Intensification Among United States Veterans Following Myocardial Infarction or Coronary Revascularization Between 2015 and 2019

BACKGROUND

Understanding how statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9i (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 serine protease inhibitors) are prescribed after a myocardial infarction (MI) or elective coronary revascularization may improve lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) intensification and reduce recurrent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events. We described the use and intensification of LLT among US veterans who had a MI or elective coronary revascularization between July 24, 2015, and December 9, 2019, within 12 months of hospital discharge.

METHODS

LLT intensification was defined as increasing statin dose, or initiating a statin, ezetimibe, or a PCSK9i, overall and among those with an LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) ≥70 or 100 mg/dL. Poisson regression was used to determine patient characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of LLT intensification following hospitalization for MI or elective coronary revascularization.

RESULTS

Among 81 372 index events (mean age, 69.0 years, 2.3% female, mean LDL-C 89.6 mg/dL, 33.8% with LDL-C <70 mg/dL), 39.7% were not taking any LLT, and 22.0%, 37.2%, and 0.6% were taking a low-moderate intensity statin, a high-intensity statin, and ezetimibe, respectively, before MI/coronary revascularization during the study period. Within 14 days, 3 months, and 12 months posthospitalization, 33.3%, 41.9%, and 47.3%, respectively, of veterans received LLT intensification. LLT intensification was most common among veterans taking no LLT (82.5%, n=26 637) before MI/coronary revascularization. Higher baseline LDL-C, having a lipid test, and attending a cardiology visit were each associated with a greater likelihood of LLT intensification, while age ≥75 versus <65 years was associated with a lower likelihood of LLT intensification within 12 months posthospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than half of veterans received LLT intensification in the year after MI or coronary revascularization suggesting a missed opportunity to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk.

Identification of a SGCD × Discrimination Interaction Effect on Systolic Blood Pressure in African American Adults in the Jackson Heart Study

BACKGROUND

In the United States, hypertension disproportionately afflicts over half of African American adults, many of whom also experience racial discrimination. Understanding gene × discrimination effects may help explain racial disparities in hypertension.

METHODS

We tested for the main effects and interactive effects of 5 candidate single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs: rs2116737, rs11190458, rs2445762, rs2597955, and rs2416545) and experiences of discrimination on blood pressure (BP) in African Americans not taking antihypertensive medications in the Jackson Heart Study from Mississippi (n = 2,933). Multiple linear regression models assumed an additive genetic model and adjusted for ancestry, age, sex, body mass index, education, and relatedness. We additionally tested recessive and dominant genetic models.

RESULTS

Discrimination was significantly associated with higher diastolic BP (P = 0.003). In contrast, there were no main effects of any SNP on BP. When analyzing SNPs and discrimination together, SGCD (Sarcoglycan Delta; rs2116737) demonstrated a gene × environment interaction. Specifically, an SGCD × Discrimination interaction was associated with systolic BP (β =1.95, P = 0.00028) in a recessive model. Participants carrying a T allele, regardless of discrimination experiences, and participants with a GG genotype and high experiences of discrimination had higher systolic BP than participants with a GG genotype and low experiences of discrimination. This finding suggests the SGCD GG genotype may have a protective effect on systolic BP, but only in a setting of low discrimination.

CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of culturally relevant stressors, like discrimination, may be important to understand the gene-environment interplay likely underlying complex diseases with racial health inequities.

An efficient approach for optimizing the cost-effective individualized treatment rule using conditional random forest

Evidence from observational studies has become increasingly important for supporting healthcare policy making via cost-effectiveness analyses. Similar as in comparative effectiveness studies, health economic evaluations that consider subject-level heterogeneity produce individualized treatment rules that are often more cost-effective than one-size-fits-all treatment. Thus, it is of great interest to develop statistical tools for learning such a cost-effective individualized treatment rule under the causal inference framework that allows proper handling of potential confounding and can be applied to both trials and observational studies. In this paper, we use the concept of net-monetary-benefit to assess the trade-off between health benefits and related costs. We estimate cost-effective individualized treatment rule as a function of patients' characteristics that, when implemented, optimizes the allocation of limited healthcare resources by maximizing health gains while minimizing treatment-related costs. We employ the conditional random forest approach and identify the optimal cost-effective individualized treatment rule using net-monetary-benefit-based classification algorithms, where two partitioned estimators are proposed for the subject-specific weights to effectively incorporate information from censored individuals. We conduct simulation studies to evaluate the performance of our proposals. We apply our top-performing algorithm to the NIH-funded Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial to illustrate the cost-effectiveness gains of assigning customized intensive blood pressure therapy.

Longer-Term All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality With Intensive Blood Pressure Control: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that intensive blood pressure control reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, the legacy effect of intensive treatment is unknown.

Objective

To evaluate the long-term effects of randomization to intensive treatment with the incidence of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality approximately 4.5 years after the trial ended.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial, randomization began on November 8, 2010, the trial intervention ended on August 20, 2015, and trial close-out visits occurred through July 2016. Patients 50 years and older with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk but without diabetes or history of stroke were included from 102 clinic sites in the US and Puerto Rico. Analyses were conducted between October 2021 and February 2022.

Interventions

Randomization to systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment group; n = 4678) vs less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment group; n = 4683).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Extended observational follow-up for mortality via the US National Death Index from 2016 through 2020. In a subset of 2944 trial participants, outpatient SBP from electronic health records during and after the trial were examined.

Results

Among 9361 randomized participants, the mean (SD) age was 67.9 (9.4) years, and 3332 (35.6%) were women. Over a median (IQR) intervention period of 3.3 (2.9-3.9) years, intensive treatment was beneficial for both cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.89) and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.01). However, at the median (IQR) total follow-up of 8.8 (8.3-9.3) years, there was no longer evidence of benefit for cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.84-1.24) or all-cause mortality (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.94-1.23). In a subgroup of participants, the estimated mean outpatient SBP among participants randomized to intensive treatment increased from 132.8 mm Hg (95% CI, 132.0-133.7) at 5 years to 140.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 137.8-143.0) at 10 years following randomization.

Conclusions and Relevance

The beneficial effect of intensive treatment on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality did not persist after the trial. Given increasing outpatient SBP levels in participants randomized to intensive treatment following the trial, these results highlight the importance of consistent long-term management of hypertension.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Prevalence, risk factors, and cardiovascular disease outcomes associated with persistent blood pressure control: The Jackson Heart Study

Background

Maintaining blood pressure (BP) control over time may contribute to lower risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) among individuals who are taking antihypertensive medication.

Methods

The Jackson Heart Study (JHS) enrolled 5,306 African-American adults ≥21 years of age and was used to determine the proportion of African Americans that maintain persistent BP control, identify factors associated with persistent BP control, and determine the association of persistent BP control with CVD events. This analysis included 1,604 participants who were taking antihypertensive medication at Visit 1 and had BP data at Visits 1 (2000–2004), 2 (2005–2008), and 3 (2009–2013). Persistent BP control was defined as systolic BP <140 mm Hg and diastolic BP <90 mm Hg at all three visits. CVD events were assessed from Visit 3 through December 31, 2016. Hazard ratios (HR) for the association of persistent BP control with CVD outcomes were adjusted for age, sex, systolic BP, smoking, diabetes, and total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol at Visit 3.

Results

At Visit 1, 1,226 of 1,604 participants (76.4%) with hypertension had controlled BP. Overall, 48.9% of participants taking antihypertensive medication at Visit 1 had persistent BP control. After multivariable adjustment for demographic, socioeconomic, clinical, behavioral, and psychosocial factors, and access-to-care, participants were more likely to have persistent BP control if they were <65 years of age, women, had family income ≥$25,000 at each visit, and visited a health professional in the year prior to each visit. The multivariable adjusted HR (95% confidence interval) comparing participants with versus without persistent BP control was 0.71 (0.46–1.10) for CVD, 0.68 (0.34–1.34) for coronary heart disease, 0.65 (0.27–1.52) for stroke, and 0.55 (0.33–0.90) for heart failure.

Conclusion

Less than half of JHS participants taking antihypertensive medication had persistent BP control, putting them at increased risk for heart failure.

Insights From a Large-Scale Whole-Genome Sequencing Study of Systolic Blood Pressure, Diastolic Blood Pressure, and Hypertension

BACKGROUND

The availability of whole-genome sequencing data in large studies has enabled the assessment of coding and noncoding variants across the allele frequency spectrum for their associations with blood pressure.

METHODS

We conducted a multiancestry whole-genome sequencing analysis of blood pressure among 51 456 Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine and Centers for Common Disease Genomics program participants (stage-1). Stage-2 analyses leveraged array data from UK Biobank (N=383 145), Million Veteran Program (N=318 891), and Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (N=10 643) participants, along with whole-exome sequencing data from UK Biobank (N=199 631) participants.

RESULTS

Two blood pressure signals achieved genome-wide significance in meta-analyses of stage-1 and stage-2 single variant findings (P<5×10^-8). Among them, a rare intergenic variant at novel locus, LOC100506274, was associated with lower systolic blood pressure in stage-1 (beta [SE]=-32.6 [6.0]; P=4.99×10^-8) but not stage-2 analysis (P=0.11). Furthermore, a novel common variant at the known INSR locus was suggestively associated with diastolic blood pressure in stage-1 (beta [SE]=-0.36 [0.07]; P=4.18×10^-7) and attained genome-wide significance in stage-2 (beta [SE]=-0.29 [0.03]; P=7.28×10^-23). Nineteen additional signals suggestively associated with blood pressure in meta-analysis of single and aggregate rare variant findings (P<1×10^-6 and P<1×10^-4, respectively).

DISCUSSION

We report one promising but unconfirmed rare variant for blood pressure and, more importantly, contribute insights for future blood pressure sequencing studies. Our findings suggest promise of aggregate analyses to complement single variant analysis strategies and the need for larger, diverse samples, and family studies to enable robust rare variant identification.

Risk of Mild Cognitive Impairment or Probable Dementia in New Users of Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors: A Secondary Analysis of Data From the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)

Importance

The cardiovascular and renal outcomes of angiotensin-II receptor blocker (ARB) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) treatment are well-known; however, few studies have evaluated initiation of these agents and cognitive impairment.

Objective

To emulate a target trial to evaluate the cognitive outcomes of initiating an ARB- vs ACEI-based antihypertensive regimen in individuals at risk for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and probable dementia (PD).

Design, Setting, and Participants

Active comparator, new-user observational cohort study design using data from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), conducted November 2010 through July 2018. Marginal cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and treatment-specific cumulative incidence functions were estimated with inverse probability (IP) weighting to account for confounding. Participants were using neither an ARB nor ACEI at baseline. Data analysis was conducted from April 7, 2021, to April 26, 2022.

Exposures

New users of ARB vs ACEI during the first 12 months of trial follow-up.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Composite of adjudicated amnestic MCI or PD.

Results

Of 9361 participants, 727 and 1313 new users of an ARB or ACEI, respectively, with well-balanced baseline characteristics between medication exposure groups after inverse probability weighting (mean [SD] age, 67 [9.5] years; 1291 ]63%] male; 240 [33%] Black; 89 [12%] Hispanic; 383 [53%] White; and 15 [2%] other race or ethnicity. In the primary analysis, during a median follow-up of 4.9 years, the inverse probability-weighted rate of amnestic MCI or PD was 4.3 vs 4.6 per 100 person-years among participants initiating ARB vs ACEI (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-1.13). In subgroup analyses, new users of an ARB vs ACEI had a lower rate of amnestic MCI or PD among those in the standard systolic blood pressure treatment arm (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.41-0.91) but not in the intensive arm (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.90-1.52) (P = .007 for interaction).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this observational cohort study of US adults at high cardiovascular disease risk, there was no difference in the rate of amnestic MCI or PD among new users of an ARB compared with ACEI, although 95% CIs were wide.

Predicting Out-of-Office Blood Pressure in a Diverse US Population

BACKGROUND

The PRedicting Out-of-OFfice Blood Pressure (PROOF-BP) algorithm accurately predicted out-of-office blood pressure (BP) among adults with suspected high BP in the United Kingdom and Canada. We tested the accuracy of PROOF-BP in a diverse US population and evaluated a newly developed US-specific algorithm (PROOF-BP-US).

METHODS

Adults with ≥2 office BP readings and ≥10 awake BP readings on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring from 4 pooled US studies were included. We compared mean awake BP with predicted out-of-office BP using PROOF-BP and PROOF-BP-US. Our primary outcomes were hypertensive out-of-office systolic BP (SBP) ≥130 mm Hg and diastolic BP (DBP) ≥80 mm Hg.

RESULTS

We included 3,058 adults, mean (SD) age was 52.0 (11.9) years, 38% were male, and 54% were Black. The area under the receiver-operator characteristic (AUROC) curve (95% confidence interval) for hypertensive out-of-office SBP was 0.81 (0.79-0.82) and DBP was 0.76 (0.74-0.78) for PROOF-BP. For PROOF-BP-US, the AUROC curve for hypertensive out-of-office SBP was 0.82 (0.81-0.83) and for DBP was 0.81 (0.79-0.83). The optimal predicted out-of-office BP ranges for out-of-office BP measurement referral were 120-134/75-84 mm Hg for PROOF-BP and 125-134/75-84 mm Hg for PROOF-BP-US. The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association BP guideline (referral range 130-159/80-99 mm Hg) would refer 93.1% of adults not taking antihypertensive medications with office BP ≥130/80 mm Hg in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for out-of-office BP measurement, compared with 53.1% using PROOF-BP and 46.8% using PROOF-BP-US.

CONCLUSIONS

PROOF-BP and PROOF-BP-US accurately predicted out-of-office hypertension in a diverse sample of US adults.

Cost-Effectiveness of Masked Hypertension Screening and Treatment in US Adults With Suspected Masked Hypertension: A Simulation Study

BACKGROUND

Recent US blood pressure (BP) guidelines recommend using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring (HBPM) to screen adults for masked hypertension. However, limited evidence exists of the expected long-term effects of screening for and treating masked hypertension.

METHODS

We estimated the lifetime health and economic outcomes of screening for and treating masked hypertension using the Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Policy Model, a validated microsimulation model. We simulated a cohort of 100,000 US adults aged ≥20 years with suspected masked hypertension (i.e., office BP 120-129/<80 mm Hg, not taking antihypertensive medications, without CVD history). We compared usual care only (i.e., no screening), usual care plus ABPM, and usual care plus HBPM. We projected total direct healthcare costs (2021 USD), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Future costs and QALYs were discounted 3% annually. Secondary outcomes included CVD events and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

Relative to usual care, adding masked hypertension screening and treatment with ABPM and HBPM was projected to prevent 14.3 and 20.5 CVD events per 100,000 person-years, increase the proportion experiencing any treatment-related serious adverse events by 2.7 and 5.1 percentage points, and increase mean total costs by $1,076 and $1,046, respectively. Compared with usual care, adding ABPM was estimated to cost $85,164/QALY gained. HBPM resulted in lower QALYs than usual care due to increased treatment-related adverse events and pill-taking disutility.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from our simulation study suggest screening with ABPM and treating masked hypertension is cost-effective in US adults with suspected masked hypertension.

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 170: Cost-effectiveness Of Icosapent Ethyl In Reduce-it USA: Results From Patients Randomized In The United States

Background: The Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl (IE)-Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT) demonstrated the efficacy of IE among patients with elevated triglyceride levels despite the use of statins. This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness (CE) of IE among US adults using both in-trial and lifetime time horizons.

Methods: US patients in REDUCE-IT were included in the in-trial analysis. We included all cardiovascular and serious adverse events from the REDUCE-IT database where rates differed between the study arms; we used patient-level data from REDUCE-IT USA based on 2019 US costs and $4.16/day for IE. The lifetime analysis used a microsimulation Markov model. Both analyses considered value from a US health sector perspective. The primary result is the incremental CE ratio (ICER), measured as incremental costs divided by incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of IE compared with placebo. We performed univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) to capture the uncertainties involved in the estimation of costs and QALYs.

Results: Based on 3146 REDUCE-IT USA participants, there was an incremental gain in QALYs with IE compared with placebo using in-trial (3.28 vs. 3.13) and lifetime (10.36 vs. 9.83) time horizons. Total healthcare costs were lower with IE compared with placebo for both in-trial ($20,221 vs. $20,357) and lifetime ($201,842 vs. $204,701). IE was a dominant strategy compared to placebo using a lifetime time horizon with a 74.8% probability of being more effective and costing less and had a 99.6% probability of costing below $50,000 per QALY. The lifetime PSA showed that IE was a dominant strategy in 65.6% of simulations and cost-effective in 98.8%, 99.6%, and 99.9% of simulations at the $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 per QALY gained thresholds, respectively.

Conclusions: The REDUCE-IT USA cost-effectiveness analysis has shown that IE provides better outcomes with lower costs, dominant both in-trial and lifetime as well in the majority of sensitivity analyses and subgroups, both in primary and secondary prevention. These results, with the clinical evidence of efficacy, suggest that at $4.16 per day, IE therapy should be strongly considered in patients similar to those enrolled in REDUCE-IT USA.

Abstract 244: The Potential Population Health Impact Of Treating US Adults With Icosapent Ethyl

Background: To estimate the population health impact of treating all US adults eligible for the Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT) with icosapent ethyl (IPE), we estimated (1) the number of ASCVD events and healthcare costs that could be prevented; and (2) medication costs.

Methods: We derived REDUCE-IT eligible cohorts in (1) the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) 2009-2014 and (2) the Optum Research Database (ORD). Population sizes were obtained from NHANES and observed first event rates at five years (composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, or coronary revascularization) were estimated from ORD. Hazard ratios from REDUCE-IT USA estimated events prevented with IPE. Total (i.e., first and recurrent) event rates were estimated from the REDUCE-IT USA subgroup, applying the treatment effect on total events observed in the entire REDUCE-IT trial. The National Inpatient Sample estimated facility and professional event costs and daily IPE treatment cost was approximated at $4.16.

Results: We estimate 3.6 million US adults to be REDUCE-IT eligible, and an observed first event rate of 19.0% could be lowered to 13.1% with five years of IPE treatment, preventing 212,000 events (Table). We projected the annual IPE treatment cost for all eligible persons to be $5.5 billion, but saving $1.7 billion annually due to first events prevented (net annual cost $3.8 billion). The total five-year event rate (first and recurrent) could be reduced from 42.5% to 28.9% with five years of IPE therapy, preventing 490,000 events (net annual cost $2.3 billion).

Conclusions: Treating all REDUCE-IT eligible US adults has substantial medication costs but could prevent a substantial number of ASCVD events and associated direct costs. Indirect cost savings by preventing events could outweigh much of the incurred direct costs.

Association of colorectal cancer with genetic and epigenetic variation in PEAR1—A population-based cohort study

Platelet Endothelial Aggregation Receptor 1 (PEAR1) modulates angiogenesis and platelet contact-induced activation, which play a role in the pathogenesis of colorectal cancer. We therefore tested the association of incident colorectal cancer and genetic and epigenetic variability in PEAR1 among 2532 randomly recruited participants enrolled in the family-based Flemish Study on Environment, Genes and Health Outcomes (51.2% women; mean age 44.8 years). All underwent genotyping of rs12566888 located in intron 1 of the PEAR1 gene; in 926 participants, methylation at 16 CpG sites in the PEAR1 promoter was also assessed. Over 18.1 years (median), 49 colorectal cancers occurred, all in different pedigrees. While accounting for clustering of risk factors within families and adjusting for sex, age, body mass index, the total-to-HDL cholesterol ratio, serum creatinine, plasma glucose, smoking and drinking, use of antiplatelet and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, the hazard ratio of colorectal cancer contrasting minor-allele (T) carriers vs. major-allele (GG) homozygotes was 2.17 (95% confidence interval, 1.18–3.99; P = 0.013). Bootstrapped analyses, from which we randomly excluded from two to nine cancer cases, provided confirmatory results. In participants with methylation data, we applied partial least square discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) and identified two methylation sites associated with higher colorectal cancer risk and two with lower risk. In-silico analysis suggested that methylation of the PEAR1 promoter at these four sites might affect binding of transcription factors p53, PAX5, and E2F-1, thereby modulating gene expression. In conclusion, our findings suggest that genetic and epigenetic variation in PEAR1 modulates the risk of colorectal cancer in white Flemish. To what extent, environmental factors as exemplified by our methylation data, interact with genetic predisposition and modulate penetrance of colorectal cancer risk is unknown.

The Potential Population Health Impact of Treating REDUCE-IT eligible US adults with Icosapent Ethyl

•

An estimated 3.6 million US adults are REDUCE-IT eligible.

•

An estimated 212,000 ASCVD events over five years can be prevented with icosapent ethyl therapy.

•

The estimated annual cost of treating all eligible US adults with icosapent ethyl is $5.5 billion.

•

An estimated $1.8 billion could be saved annually from ASCVD events prevented.

Objective

To explore the population health impact of treating all US adults eligible for the Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT) with icosapent ethyl (IPE), we estimated (1) the number of ASCVD events and healthcare costs that could be prevented; and (2) medication costs.

Methods

We derived REDUCE-IT eligible cohorts in (1) the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) 2009-2014 and (2) the Optum Research Database (ORD). Population sizes were obtained from NHANES and observed first event rates (composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, or coronary revascularization) were estimated from the ORD. Hazard ratios from REDUCE-IT USA estimated events prevented with IPE therapy. The National Inpatient Sample estimated event costs (facility and professional) and daily IPE treatment cost was approximated at $4.59.

Results

We estimate 3.6 million US adults to be REDUCE-IT eligible, and the observed five-year first event rate without IPE of 19.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.6%-19.5%) could be lowered to 13.1% (95% CI 12.8%-13.5%) with five years of IPE treatment, preventing 212,000 (uncertainty range 163,000-262,000) events. We projected the annual IPE treatment cost for all eligible persons to be $6.0 billion (95% CI $4.7-$7.5 billion), but saving $1.8 billion annually due to first events prevented (net annual cost $4.3 billion). The total five-year event rate (first and recurrent) could be reduced from 42.5% (95% CI 39.6%-45.4%) to 28.9% (95% CI 26.9-30.9%) with five years of IPE therapy, preventing 490,000 (uncertainty range 370,000-609,000) events (net annual cost $2.6 billion).

Conclusions

Treating all REDUCE-IT eligible US adults has substantial medication costs but could prevent a substantial number of ASCVD events and associated direct costs. Indirect cost savings by preventing events could outweigh much of the incurred direct costs.

Association of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control With Cerebral Blood Flow: Secondary Analysis of the SPRINT MIND Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Antihypertensive treatments benefit cerebrovascular health and cognitive function in patients with hypertension, but it is uncertain whether an intensive blood pressure target leads to potentially harmful cerebral hypoperfusion.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association of intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) control vs standard control with whole-brain cerebral blood flow (CBF).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This substudy of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) randomized clinical trial compared the efficacy of 2 different blood pressure-lowering strategies with longitudinal brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including arterial spin labeled perfusion imaging to quantify CBF. A total of 1267 adults 50 years or older with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk but free of diabetes or dementia were screened for the SPRINT substudy from 6 sites in the US. Randomization began in November 2010 with final follow-up MRI in July 2016. Analyses were performed from September 2020 through December 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Study participants with baseline CBF measures were randomized to an intensive SBP target less than 120 mm Hg or standard SBP target less than 140 mm Hg.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was change in whole-brain CBF from baseline. Secondary outcomes were change in gray matter, white matter, and periventricular white matter CBF.

RESULTS

Among 547 participants with CBF measured at baseline, the mean (SD) age was 67.5 (8.1) years and 219 (40.0%) were women; 315 completed follow-up MRI at a median (IQR) of 4.0 (3.7-4.1) years after randomization. Mean whole-brain CBF increased from 38.90 to 40.36 (difference, 1.46 [95% CI, 0.08-2.83]) mL/100 g/min in the intensive treatment group, with no mean increase in the standard treatment group (37.96 to 37.12; difference, -0.84 [95% CI, -2.30 to 0.61] mL/100 g/min; between-group difference, 2.30 [95% CI, 0.30-4.30; P = .02]). Gray, white, and periventricular white matter CBF showed similar changes. The association of intensive vs standard treatment with CBF was generally similar across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, chronic kidney disease, SBP, orthostatic hypotension, and frailty, with the exception of an indication of larger mean increases in CBF associated with intensive treatment among participants with a history of cardiovascular disease (interaction P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Intensive vs standard antihypertensive treatment was associated with increased, rather than decreased, cerebral perfusion, most notably in participants with a history of cardiovascular disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Estimating the optimal individualized treatment rule from a cost-effectiveness perspective

Optimal individualized treatment rules (ITRs) provide customized treatment recommendations based on subject characteristics to maximize clinical benefit in accordance with the objectives in precision medicine. As a result, there is growing interest in developing statistical tools for estimating optimal ITRs in evidence-based research. In health economic perspectives, policy makers consider the tradeoff between health gains and incremental costs of interventions to set priorities and allocate resources. However, most work on ITRs has focused on maximizing the effectiveness of treatment without considering costs. In this paper, we jointly consider the impact of effectiveness and cost on treatment decisions and define ITRs under a composite-outcome setting, so that we identify the most cost-effective ITR that accounts for individual-level heterogeneity through direct optimization. In particular, we propose a decision-tree-based statistical learning algorithm that uses a net-monetary-benefit-based reward to provide nonparametric estimations of the optimal ITR. We provide several approaches to estimating the reward underlying the ITR as a function of subject characteristics. We present the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and provide practical guidelines by comparing their performance in simulation studies. We illustrate the top-performing approach from our simulations by evaluating the projected 15-year personalized cost-effectiveness of the intensive blood pressure control of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) study.

Rare coding variants in RCN3 are associated with blood pressure

BACKGROUND

While large genome-wide association studies have identified nearly one thousand loci associated with variation in blood pressure, rare variant identification is still a challenge. In family-based cohorts, genome-wide linkage scans have been successful in identifying rare genetic variants for blood pressure. This study aims to identify low frequency and rare genetic variants within previously reported linkage regions on chromosomes 1 and 19 in African American families from the Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) program. Genetic association analyses weighted by linkage evidence were completed with whole genome sequencing data within and across TOPMed ancestral groups consisting of 60,388 individuals of European, African, East Asian, Hispanic, and Samoan ancestries.

RESULTS

Associations of low frequency and rare variants in RCN3 and multiple other genes were observed for blood pressure traits in TOPMed samples. The association of low frequency and rare coding variants in RCN3 was further replicated in UK Biobank samples (N = 403,522), and reached genome-wide significance for diastolic blood pressure (p = 2.01 × 10- 7).

CONCLUSIONS

Low frequency and rare variants in RCN3 contributes blood pressure variation. This study demonstrates that focusing association analyses in linkage regions greatly reduces multiple-testing burden and improves power to identify novel rare variants associated with blood pressure traits.

Potential impact of systematic and random errors in blood pressure measurement on the prevalence of high office blood pressure in the United States

The authors examined the proportion of US adults that would have their high blood pressure (BP) status changed if systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) were measured with systematic bias and/or random error versus following a standardized protocol. Data from the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES; n = 5176) were analyzed. BP was measured up to three times using a mercury sphygmomanometer by a trained physician following a standardized protocol and averaged. High BP was defined as SBP ≥130 mm Hg or DBP ≥80 mm Hg. Among US adults not taking antihypertensive medication, 32.0% (95%CI: 29.6%,34.4%) had high BP. If SBP and DBP were measured with systematic bias, 5 mm Hg for SBP and 3.5 mm Hg for DBP higher and lower than in NHANES, the proportion with high BP was estimated to be 44.4% (95%CI: 42.6%,46.2%) and 21.9% (95%CI 19.5%,24.4%). Among US adults taking antihypertensive medication, 60.6% (95%CI: 57.2%,63.9%) had high BP. If SBP and DBP were measured 5 and 3.5 mm Hg higher and lower than in NHANES, the proportion with high BP was estimated to be 71.8% (95%CI: 68.3%,75.0%) and 48.4% (95%CI: 44.6%,52.2%), respectively. If BP was measured with random error, with standard deviations of 15 mm Hg for SBP and 7 mm Hg for DBP, 21.4% (95%CI: 19.8%,23.0%) of US adults not taking antihypertensive medication and 20.5% (95%CI: 17.7%,23.3%) taking antihypertensive medication had their high BP status re-categorized. In conclusions, measuring BP with systematic or random errors may result in the misclassification of high BP for a substantial proportion of US adults.

Cost-effectiveness of Icosapent Ethyl for High-risk Patients With Hypertriglyceridemia Despite Statin Treatment

Importance

The Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT) demonstrated the efficacy of icosapent ethyl (IPE) for high-risk patients with hypertriglyceridemia and known cardiovascular disease or diabetes and at least 1 other risk factor who were treated with statins.

Objective

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of IPE compared with standard care for high-risk patients with hypertriglyceridemia despite statin treatment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

An in-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using patient-level study data from REDUCE-IT, and a lifetime analysis was performed using a microsimulation model and data from published literature. The study included 8179 patients with hypertriglyceridemia despite stable statin therapy recruited between November 21, 2011, and May 31, 2018. Analyses were performed from a US health care sector perspective. Statistical analysis was performed from March 1, 2018, to October 31, 2021.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned to IPE, 4 g/d, or placebo and were followed up for a median of 4.9 years (IQR, 3.5-5.3 years). The cost of IPE was $4.16 per day after rebates using SSR Health net cost (SSR cost) and $9.28 per day with wholesale acquisition cost (WAC).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Main outcomes were incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total direct health care costs (2019 US dollars), and cost-effectiveness.

Results

A total of 4089 patients (2927 men [71.6%]; median age, 64.0 years [IQR, 57.0-69.0 years]) were randomly assigned to receive IPE, and 4090 patients (2895 men [70.8%]; median age, 64.0 years [IQR, 57.0-69.0 years]) were randomly assigned to receive standard care. Treatment with IPE yielded more QALYs than standard care both in trial (3.34 vs 3.27; mean difference, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.01-0.12]) and over a lifetime projection (10.59 vs 10.35; mean difference, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.15-0.33]). In-trial, total health care costs were higher with IPE using either SSR cost ($18 786) or WAC ($24 544) than with standard care ($17 273; mean difference from SSR cost, $1513 [95% CI, $155-$2870]; mean difference from WAC, $7271 [95% CI, $5911-$8630]). Icosapent ethyl cost $22 311 per QALY gained using SSR cost and $107 218 per QALY gained using WAC. Over a lifetime, IPE was projected to be cost saving when using SSR cost ($195 276) compared with standard care ($197 064; mean difference, -$1788 [95% CI, -$9735 to $6159]) but to have higher costs when using WAC ($202 830) compared with standard care (mean difference, $5766 [95% CI, $1094-$10 438]). Compared with standard care, IPE had a 58.4% lifetime probability of costing less and being more effective when using SSR cost and an 89.4% probability of costing less than $50 000 per QALY gained when using SSR cost and a 72.5% probability of costing less than $50 000 per QALY gained when using WAC.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study suggests that, both in-trial and over the lifetime, IPE offers better cardiovascular outcomes than standard care in REDUCE-IT participants at common willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Analysis of Therapeutic Inertia and Race and Ethnicity in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Therapeutic inertia may contribute to racial and ethnic differences in blood pressure (BP) control.

Objective

To determine the association between race and ethnicity and therapeutic inertia in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study was a secondary analysis of data from SPRINT, a randomized clinical trial comparing intensive (<120 mm Hg) vs standard (<140 mm Hg) systolic BP treatment goals. Participants were enrolled between November 8, 2010, and March 15, 2013, with a median follow-up 3.26 years. Participants included adults aged 50 years or older at high risk for cardiovascular disease but without diabetes, previous stroke, or heart failure. The present analysis was restricted to participant visits with measured BP above the target goal. Analyses for the present study were performed in from October 2020 through March 2021.

Exposures

Self-reported race and ethnicity, mutually exclusively categorized into groups of Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, or non-Hispanic White participants.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Therapeutic inertia, defined as no antihypertensive medication intensification at each study visit where the BP was above target goal. The association between self-reported race and ethnicity and therapeutic inertia was estimated using generalized estimating equations and stratified by treatment group. Antihypertensive medication use was assessed with pill bottle inventories at each visit. Blood pressure was measured using an automated device.

Results

A total of 8556 participants, including 4141 in the standard group (22 844 participant-visits; median age, 67.0 years [IQR, 61.0-76.0 years]; 1467 women [35.4%]) and 4415 in the intensive group (35 453 participant-visits; median age, 67.0 years [IQR, 61.0-76.0 years]; 1584 women [35.9%]) with at least 1 eligible study visit were included in the present analysis. Among non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic participants, the overall prevalence of therapeutic inertia in the standard vs intensive groups was 59.8% (95% CI, 58.9%-60.7%) vs 56.0% (95% CI, 55.2%-56.7%), 56.8% (95% CI, 54.4%-59.2%) vs 54.5% (95% CI, 52.4%-56.6%), and 59.7% (95% CI, 56.5%-63.0%) vs 51.0% (95% CI, 47.4%-54.5%), respectively. The adjusted odds ratios in the standard and intensive groups for therapeutic inertia associated with non-Hispanic Black vs non-Hispanic White participants were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.92) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.88-1.01), respectively. The adjusted odds ratios for therapeutic inertia comparing Hispanic vs non-Hispanic White participants were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.90-1.13) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79-1.00) in the standard and intensive groups, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among SPRINT participants above BP target goal, this cross-sectional study found that therapeutic inertia prevalence was similar or lower for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic participants compared with non-Hispanic White participants. These findings suggest that a standardized approach to BP management, as used in SPRINT, may help ensure equitable care and could reduce the contribution of therapeutic inertia to disparities in hypertension.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01206062.

Association of Antihypertensives That Stimulate vs Inhibit Types 2 and 4 Angiotensin II Receptors With Cognitive Impairment

Importance

Use of antihypertensive medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, compared with those that do not stimulate these receptors, has been associated with a lower risk of dementia. However, this association with cognitive outcomes in hypertension trials, with blood pressure levels in the range of current guidelines, has not been evaluated.

Objective

To examine the association between use of exclusively antihypertensive medication regimens that stimulate vs inhibit type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors on mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study is a secondary analysis (April 2011 to July 2018) of participants in the randomized Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), which recruited individuals 50 years or older with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk but without a history of diabetes, stroke, or dementia. Data analysis was conducted from March 16 to July 6, 2021.

Exposures

Prevalent use of angiotensin II receptor type 2 and 4-stimulating or -inhibiting antihypertensive medication regimens at the 6-month study visit.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was a composite of adjudicated amnestic MCI or probable dementia.

Results

Of the 8685 SPRINT participants who were prevalent users of antihypertensive medication regimens at the 6-month study visit (mean [SD] age, 67.7 [11.2] years; 5586 [64.3%] male; and 935 [10.8%] Hispanic, 2605 [30.0%] non-Hispanic Black, 4983 [57.4%] non-Hispanic White, and 162 [1.9%] who responded as other race or ethnicity), 2644 (30.4%) were users of exclusively stimulating, 1536 (17.7%) inhibiting, and 4505 (51.9%) mixed antihypertensive medication regimens. During a median of 4.8 years of follow-up (95% CI, 4.7-4.8 years), there were 45 vs 59 cases per 1000 person-years of amnestic MCI or probable dementia among prevalent users of regimens that contained exclusively stimulating vs inhibiting antihypertensive medications (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87). When comparing stimulating-only vs inhibiting-only users, amnestic MCI occurred at rates of 40 vs 54 cases per 1000 person-years (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.87) and probable dementia at rates of 8 vs 10 cases per 1000 person-years (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.57-1.14). Negative control outcome analyses suggested the presence of residual confounding.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this secondary analysis of SPRINT, prevalent users of regimens that contain exclusively antihypertensive medications that stimulate vs inhibit type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors had lower rates of incident cognitive impairment. Residual confounding cannot be ruled out. If these results are replicated in randomized clinical trials, certain antihypertensive medications could be prioritized to prevent cognitive decline.

Multiple Social Vulnerabilities to Health Disparities and Hypertension and Death in the REGARDS Study

Social vulnerabilities increase the risk of developing hypertension and lower life expectancy, but the effect of an individual's overall vulnerability burden is unknown. Our objective was to determine the association of social vulnerability count and the risk of developing hypertension or dying over 10 years and whether these associations vary by race. We used the REGARDS study (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke) and included participants without baseline hypertension. The primary exposure was the count of social vulnerabilities defined across economic, education, health and health care, neighborhood and built environment, and social and community context domains. Among 5425 participants of mean age 64±10 SD years of which 24% were Black participants, 1468 (31%) had 1 vulnerability and 717 (15%) had ≥2 vulnerabilities. Compared with participants without vulnerabilities, the adjusted relative risk ratio for developing hypertension was 1.16 (95% CI, 0.99-1.36) and 1.49 (95% CI, 1.20-1.85) for individuals with 1 and ≥2 vulnerabilities, respectively. The adjusted relative risk ratio for death was 1.55 (95% CI, 1.24-1.93) and 2.30 (95% CI, 1.75-3.04) for individuals with 1 and ≥2 vulnerabilities, respectively. A greater proportion of Black participants developed hypertension and died than did White participants (hypertension, 38% versus 31%; death, 25% versus 20%). The vulnerability count association was strongest in White participants (P value for vulnerability count×race interaction: hypertension=0.046, death=0.015). Overall, a greater number of socially determined vulnerabilities was associated with progressively higher risk of developing hypertension, and an even higher risk of dying over 10 years.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and COVID-19-related outcomes: A patient-level analysis of the PCORnet blood pressure control lab

SARS-CoV-2 accesses host cells via angiotensin-converting enzyme-2, which is also affected by commonly used angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), raising concerns that ACEI or ARB exposure may portend differential COVID-19 outcomes. In parallel cohort studies of outpatient and inpatient COVID-19-diagnosed adults with hypertension, we assessed associations between antihypertensive exposure (ACEI/ARB vs. non-ACEI/ARB antihypertensives, as well as between ACEI- vs. ARB) at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, using electronic health record data from PCORnet health systems. The primary outcomes were all-cause hospitalization or death (outpatient cohort) or all-cause death (inpatient), analyzed via Cox regression weighted by inverse probability of treatment weights. From February 2020 through December 9, 2020, 11,246 patients (3477 person-years) and 2200 patients (777 person-years) were included from 17 health systems in outpatient and inpatient cohorts, respectively. There were 1015 all-cause hospitalization or deaths in the outpatient cohort (incidence, 29.2 events per 100 person-years), with no significant difference by ACEI/ARB use (adjusted HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.88, 1.15). In the inpatient cohort, there were 218 all-cause deaths (incidence, 28.1 per 100 person-years) and ACEI/ARB exposure was associated with reduced death (adjusted HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57, 0.99). ACEI, versus ARB exposure, was associated with higher risk of hospitalization in the outpatient cohort, but no difference in all-cause death in either cohort. There was no evidence of effect modification across pre-specified baseline characteristics. Our results suggest ACEI and ARB exposure have no detrimental effect on hospitalizations and may reduce death among hypertensive patients diagnosed with COVID-19.

Stress and Depression Are Associated With Life's Simple 7 Among African Americans With Hypertension: Findings From the Jackson Heart Study

BACKGROUND

The American Heart Association created the Life's Simple 7 (LS7) metrics to promote cardiovascular health (CVH) by achieving optimal levels of blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar, physical activity, diet, weight, and smoking status. The degree to which psychosocial factors such as stress and depression impact one's ability to achieve optimal CVH is unclear, particularly among hypertensive African Americans.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analyses included 1,819 African Americans with hypertension participating in the Jackson Heart Study (2000-2004). Outcomes were LS7 composite and individual component scores (defined as poor, intermediate, ideal). High perceived chronic stress was defined as the top quartile of Weekly Stress Inventory scores. High depressive symptoms were defined as Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale scores of ≥16. We compared 4 groups: high stress alone; high depressive symptoms alone; high stress and high depressive symptoms; low stress and low depressive symptoms (reference) using linear regression for total LS7 scores and logistic regression for LS7 components.

RESULTS

Participants with both high stress and depressive symptoms had lower composite LS7 scores (B [95% confidence interval] = -0.34 [-0.65 to -0.02]) than those with low stress and depressive symptoms in unadjusted and age/sex-adjusted models. They also had poorer health status for smoking (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.52 [0.35-0.78]) and physical activity (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.71 [0.52-0.95]) after full covariate adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of high stress and high depressive symptoms was associated with poorer LS7 metrics in hypertensive African Americans. Psychosocial interventions may increase the likelihood of engaging in behaviors that promote optimal CVH.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Initiation Among Veterans Who Are Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitor Naïve With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background

Sacubitril/valsartan, a first‐in‐class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, received US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2015 for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Our objective was to describe the sacubitril/valsartan initiation rate, associated characteristics, and 6‐month follow‐up dosing among veterans with HFrEF who are renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi) naïve.

Methods and Results

Retrospective cohort study of veterans with HFrEF who are RAASi naïve defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%; ≥1 in/outpatient heart failure visit, first RAASi (sacubitril/valsartan, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor [ACEI]), or angiotensin‐II receptor blocker [ARB]) fill from July 2015 to June 2019. Characteristics associated with sacubitril/valsartan initiation were identified using Poisson regression models. From July 2015 to June 2019, we identified 3458 sacubitril/valsartan and 29 367 ACEI or ARB initiators among veterans with HFrEF who are RAASi naïve. Sacubitril/valsartan initiation increased from 0% to 26.5%. Sacubitril/valsartan (versus ACEI or ARB) initiators were less likely to have histories of stroke, myocardial infarction, or hypertension and more likely to be older and have diabetes mellitus and lower LVEF. At 6‐month follow‐up, the prevalence of ≥50% target daily dose for sacubitril/valsartan, ACEI, and ARB initiators was 23.5%, 43.2%, and 47.1%, respectively.

Conclusions

Sacubitril/valsartan initiation for HFrEF in the Veterans Administration increased in the 4 years immediately following Food and Drug Administration approval. Sacubitril/valsartan (versus ACEI or ARB) initiators had fewer baseline cardiovascular comorbidities and the lowest proportion on ≥50% target daily dose at 6‐month follow‐up. Identifying the reasons for lower follow‐up dosing of sacubitril/valsartan could support guideline recommendations and quality improvement strategies for patients with HFrEF.

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.