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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of initial treatment with single-pill combination antihypertensive medications

Hypertension guidelines recommend initiating treatment with single pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive medications, but SPCs are used by only one-third of treated hypertensive US adults. This analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of initial treatment with SPC dual antihypertensive medications compared with usual care monotherapy in hypertensive US adults.The validated BP Control Model-Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Policy Model simulated initial SPC dual therapy (two half-standard doses in a single pill) compared with initial usual care monotherapy (half-standard dose when baseline systolic BP < 20 mmHg above goal and one standard dose when ≥20 mmHg above goal). Secondary analyses examined equivalent dose monotherapy (one standard dose) and equivalent dose dual therapy as separate pills (two half-standard doses). The primary outcomes were direct healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over 10 years from a US healthcare sector perspective.At 10 years, initial dual drug SPC was projected to yield 0.028 (95%UI 0.008 to 0.051) more QALYs at no greater cost ($73, 95%UI -$1 983 to $1 629) than usual care monotherapy. In secondary analysis, SPC dual therapy was cost-effective vs. equivalent dose monotherapy (ICER $8 000/QALY gained) and equivalent dose dual therapy as separate pills (ICER $57 000/QALY gained). At average drug prices, initiating antihypertensive treatment with SPC dual therapy is more effective at no greater cost than usual care initial monotherapy and has the potential to improve BP control rates and reduce the burden of CVD in the US.

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.

Association of Direct Oral Anticoagulation Management Strategies With Clinical Outcomes for Adults With Atrial Fibrillation

Importance

Anticoagulation management services (AMSs; ie, warfarin clinics) have evolved to include patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), but it is unknown whether DOAC therapy management services improve outcomes for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

Objective

To compare outcomes associated with 3 DOAC care models for preventing adverse anticoagulation-related outcomes among patients with AF.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study included 44 746 adult patients with a diagnosis of AF who initiated oral anticoagulation (DOAC or warfarin) between August 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, in 3 Kaiser Permanente (KP) regions. Statistical analysis was conducted from August 2021 through May 2023.

Exposures

Each KP region used an AMS to manage warfarin but used distinct approaches to DOAC care: (1) usual care (UC) by the prescribing clinician, (2) UC plus an automated population management tool (PMT), or (3) pharmacist-managed AMS care. Propensity scores and inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs) were estimated. Direct oral anticoagulant care models were first indirectly compared using warfarin as a common comparator within each region and then directly compared across regions.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patients were followed up until the first occurrence of an outcome (composite of thromboembolic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeding, or death), discontinuation of KP membership, or December 31, 2020.

Results

Overall, 44 746 patients were included: 6182 in the UC care model (3297 DOAC; 2885 warfarin), 33 625 in the UC plus PMT care model (21 891 DOAC; 11 734 warfarin), and 4939 in the AMS care model (2089 DOAC; 2850 warfarin). Baseline characteristics (mean [SD] age, 73.1 [10.6] years, 56.1% male, 67.2% non-Hispanic White, median CHA2DS2-VASc [congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes, stroke, vascular disease, age 65-74 years, female sex] score of 3 [IQR, 2-5]) were well balanced after IPTW. Over a median follow-up of 2 years, patients who received the UC plus PMT or AMS care model did not have significantly better outcomes than those who received UC. The incidence rate of the composite outcome was 5.4% per year for DOAC and 9.1% per year for warfarin for those in the UC group, 6.1% per year for DOAC and 10.5% per year for those in the UC plus PMT group, and 5.1% per year for DOAC and 8.0% per year for those in the AMS group. The IPTW-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for the composite outcome comparing DOAC vs warfarin were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.79-1.05) in the UC group, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.90) in the UC plus PMT group, and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72-0.99) in the AMS group (P = .62 for heterogeneity across care models). When directly comparing patients receiving DOAC, the IPTW-adjusted HR was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.85-1.34) for the UC plus PMT group vs the UC group and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-1.02) for the AMS group vs the UC group.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study did not find appreciably better outcomes for patients receiving DOAC who were managed by either a UC plus PMT or AMS care model compared with UC.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Race/ethnic and sex differences in the initiation of non-statin lipid-lowering medication following myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Adults with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) at very high-risk for recurrent events who have low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥ 70 mg/dL despite maximally-tolerated statin therapy are recommended to initiate ezetimibe or a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor.

OBJECTIVE

Compare the initiation of ezetimibe and a PCSK9 inhibitor after a myocardial infarction (MI) among very high-risk ASCVD patients by race/ethnicity and sex.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 374,786 adults ≥ 66 years of age with Medicare fee-for-service coverage who had an MI between July 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018, were not taking ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor, and had very high-risk ASCVD defined by the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology multi-society cholesterol guideline. Pharmacy claims through December 31, 2018 were used to determine ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitor initiation.

RESULTS

Overall, 6980 (1.9%) beneficiaries initiated ezetimibe, and 1433 (0.4%) initiated a PCSK9 inhibitor. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for ezetimibe initiation among non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and Asian versus non-Hispanic White beneficiaries were 0.77 (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.70-0.86), 0.92 (95%CI: 0.76-1.11) and 0.73 (95%CI: 0.59-0.89), respectively. Compared to non-Hispanic White beneficiaries, the aHRs for PCSK9 inhibitor initiation were 0.63 (95%CI: 0.48-0.81) among non-Hispanic Black, 0.70 (95%CI: 0.43-1.13) among Hispanic, and 0.93 (95%CI: 0.62-1.39) among Asian beneficiaries. The aHRs for ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitor initiation comparing women to men were 1.11 (95%CI: 1.06-1.17) and 1.13 (95%CI: 1.01-1.25), respectively.

CONCLUSION

There are race/ethnic and sex disparities in the initiation of ezetimibe and a PCSK9 inhibitor following MI among very high-risk ASCVD patients.

Patient Selection for Intensive Blood Pressure Management Based on Benefit and Adverse Events

BACKGROUND

Intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) treatment prevents cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in patients with high CVD risk on average, though benefits likely vary among patients.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to predict the magnitude of benefit (reduced CVD and all-cause mortality risk) along with adverse event (AE) risk from intensive versus standard SBP treatment.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial). Separate benefit outcomes were the first occurrence of: 1) a CVD composite of acute myocardial infarction or other acute coronary syndrome, stroke, heart failure, or CVD death; and 2) all-cause mortality. Treatment-related AEs of interest included hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, electrolyte abnormalities, injurious falls, and acute kidney injury. Modified elastic net Cox regression was used to predict absolute risk for each outcome and absolute risk differences on the basis of 36 baseline variables available at the point of care with intensive versus standard treatment.

RESULTS

Among 8,828 SPRINT participants (mean age 67.9 years, 35% women), 600 CVD composite events, 363 all-cause deaths, and 481 treatment-related AEs occurred over a median follow-up period of 3.26 years. Individual participant risks were predicted for the CVD composite (C index = 0.71), all-cause mortality (C index = 0.75), and treatment-related AEs (C index = 0.69). Higher baseline CVD risk was associated with greater benefit (i.e., larger absolute CVD risk reduction). Predicted CVD benefit and predicted increased treatment-related AE risk were correlated (Spearman correlation coefficient = -0.72), and 95% of participants who fell into the highest tertile of predicted benefit also had high or moderate predicted increases in treatment-related AE risk. Few were predicted as high benefit with low AE risk (1.8%) or low benefit with high AE risk (1.5%). Similar results were obtained for all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

SPRINT participants with higher baseline predicted CVD risk gained greater absolute benefit from intensive treatment. Participants with high predicted benefit were also most likely to experience treatment-related AEs, but AEs were generally mild and transient. Patients should be prioritized for intensive SBP treatment on the basis of higher predicted benefit. (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial [SPRINT]; NCT01206062).

Angiotensin II receptor blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use and COVID-19-related outcomes among US Veterans

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) may positively or negatively impact outcomes in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We investigated the association of ARB or ACEI use with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related outcomes in US Veterans with treated hypertension using an active comparator design, appropriate covariate adjustment, and negative control analyses.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In this retrospective cohort study of Veterans with treated hypertension in the Veterans Health Administration (01/19/2020-08/28/2020), we compared users of (A) ARB/ACEI vs. non-ARB/ACEI (excluding Veterans with compelling indications to reduce confounding by indication) and (B) ARB vs. ACEI among (1) SARS-CoV-2+ outpatients and (2) COVID-19 hospitalized inpatients. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalization or mortality (outpatients) and all-cause mortality (inpatients). We estimated hazard ratios (HR) using propensity score-weighted Cox regression. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between exposure groups after weighting. Among outpatients, there were 5.0 and 6.0 primary outcomes per 100 person-months for ARB/ACEI (n = 2,482) vs. non-ARB/ACEI (n = 2,487) users (HR 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.99, median follow-up 87 days). Among outpatients who were ARB (n = 4,877) vs. ACEI (n = 8,704) users, there were 13.2 and 14.8 primary outcomes per 100 person-months (HR 0.91, 95%CI 0.86-0.97, median follow-up 85 days). Among inpatients who were ARB/ACEI (n = 210) vs. non-ARB/ACEI (n = 275) users, there were 3.4 and 2.0 all-cause deaths per 100 person months (HR 1.25, 95%CI 0.30-5.13, median follow-up 30 days). Among inpatients, ARB (n = 1,164) and ACEI (n = 2,014) users had 21.0 vs. 17.7 all-cause deaths, per 100 person-months (HR 1.13, 95%CI 0.93-1.38, median follow-up 30 days).

CONCLUSIONS

This observational analysis supports continued ARB or ACEI use for patients already using these medications before SARS-CoV-2 infection. The novel beneficial association observed among outpatients between users of ARBs vs. ACEIs on hospitalization or mortality should be confirmed with randomized trials.

Factors Associated With PCSK9 Inhibitor Initiation Among US Veterans

Background

Few adults at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events use a PCSK9i (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor).

Methods and Results

Using data from the US Veterans Health Administration, we identified veterans who initiated a PCSK9i between January 2018 and December 2019, matched 1:4 to veterans who did not initiate this medication over this time period (case‐cohort study). Two cohorts of veterans were analyzed: (1) atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, with a most recent low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) ≥70 mg/dL; and (2) severe hypercholesterolemia (ie, familial hypercholesterolemia or any prior LDL‐C ≥190 mg/dL, with most recent LDL‐C ≥100 mg/dL). Conditional logistic regression was used to analyze factors associated with PCSK9i initiation, adjusting for all factors, simultaneously. There were 2394 initiators and 9576 noninitiators in the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease cohort (median LDL‐C, 141 and 96 mg/dL, respectively; P<0.001). Factors associated with a higher likelihood of PCSK9i initiation included age 65 to <75 versus <65 years, highest versus lowest quartile of median area‐level income, familial hypercholesterolemia, former statin use, and current ezetimibe use. PCSK9i initiation was lower among veterans of a race/ethnicity other than non‐Hispanic White. There were 245 initiators and 980 noninitiators in the severe hypercholesterolemia cohort (median LDL‐C, 183 and 151 mg/dL, respectively; P<0.001). Age ≥75 versus <65 years, history of chronic kidney disease, former statin use, and current ezetimibe use were associated with a higher likelihood of PCSK9i initiation.

Conclusions

Several patient‐level factors, including age, sex, and race/ethnicity, were significantly associated with PCSK9i initiation, suggesting an unmet treatment need in several patient groups.

Identifying naloxone administrations in electronic health record data using a text-mining tool

Background: Effective and efficient methods are needed to identify naloxone administrations within electronic health record (EHR) data to conduct overdose surveillance and research. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a text-mining tool to identify naloxone administrations in EHR data. Methods: Clinical notes stored in databases between January 2017 and March 2018 were used to iteratively develop a text-mining tool to identify naloxone administrations. The first iteration of the tool used broad search terms. Then, after reviewing clinical notes of overdose encounters, we developed a list of phrases that described naloxone administrations to inform iteration two. While validating iteration two, additional phrases were found, which were then added to inform the final iteration. The comparator was an administrative code query extracted from the EHR. Medical record review was used to identify true positives. The primary outcome was the positive predictive values (PPV) of the second iteration, final iteration, and administrative code query. Results: Iteration two, the final iteration, and the administrative code had PPVs of 84.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 78.6-89.0%), 83.8% (95% CI 78.6-88.2%), and 57.1% (95% CI 47.1-66.8%), respectively. Both iterations of the tool had a significantly higher PPV than the administrative code (p < 0.001). Conclusions: A text-mining tool improved the identification of naloxone administrations in EHR data from less than 60% with the administrative code to greater than 80% with both versions of the tool. Text-mining tools can inform the use of more sophisticated informatics methods, which often require significant time, resource, and expertise investment.

Twice-daily versus once-daily lisinopril and losartan for hypertension: Real-world effectiveness and safety

BACKGROUND

Lisinopril and losartan manufacturer labels recommend twice-daily dosing (BID) if once-daily (QDay) is insufficient to lower blood pressure (BP).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Retrospective cohort study of patients taking QDay lisinopril and losartan who experienced a dose-doubling (index date). A text-processing tool categorized BID and QDay groups at the index date based on administration instructions. We excluded: pregnant/hospice, regimens other than BID/QDay, and without BP measurements -6 months/+12 months of the index date. The most proximal BP measurements -6 months and +2 weeks to 12 months of the index date were used to evaluate BP differences. Propensity scores were generated, and differences in BP and adverse events (angioedema, acute kidney injury, hyperkalemia) between BID/QDay groups were analyzed within dosing cohorts using inverse propensity of treatment-weighted regression models. Of 11,210 and 6,051 patients who met all criteria for lisinopril and losartan, 784 (7.0%) and 453 (7.5%) were taking BID, respectively. BID patients were older and had higher comorbidity and medication burdens. There were no differences in systolic/diastolic BP between BID and QDay, with absolute differences in mean systolic BP ranging from -1.8 to 0.7 mmHg and diastolic BP ranging from -1.1 to 0.1 mmHg (all 95% confidence intervals [CI] cross 0). Lisinopril 10mg BID was associated with an increased odds of angioedema compared to lisinopril 20mg QDay (odds ratio 2.27, 95%CI 1.13-4.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjusted models do not support improved effectiveness or safety of BID lisinopril and losartan.

Comparison of 3 Surveillance Methods to Detect Potential Controlled Substance Diversion in an Academic Medical Center

Objectives: To compare 3 methods of detecting potential diversion of controlled substances (CS) by health care personnel from inpatient units in a large, academic medical center. Methods: Three different reports were retrospectively analyzed and evaluated to determine which employees are "high-risk" for diversion over a 30-day period using defined criteria. Reports were derived from automated dispensing machines (ADMs), purchased third-party software (TPS), and the electronic health record (EHR). The primary outcome was the percentage of employees in each report who were deemed to be high-risk for CS diversion (positive predictive value [PPV]). Secondary outcomes included the number of false positives and description of high-risk users on each report. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze differences between methods. Results: The PPV was highly variable between reports. The PPVs among the ADM, TPS, and EHR reports were 3.28%, 6.82%, and 23.88%, respectively. False positives were high among all reports (96.72%, 93.18%, and 76.12% for the ADM, TPS, and EHR reports, respectively). Conclusions: A report from the EHR has the highest PPV to detect high-risk employees who may be diverting CS. However, false positives were high for all reports, indicating that significant improvements are needed in the development of accurate and reliable software to detect potential and actual CS diversion.

Validation of algorithms to identify elective percutaneous coronary interventions in administrative databases

BACKGROUND

Elective percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) are difficult to discriminate from non-elective PCI in administrative data due to non-specific encounter codes, limiting the ability to track outcomes, ensure appropriate medical management, and/or perform research on patients who undergo elective PCI. The objective of this study was to assess the abilities of several algorithms to identify elective PCI procedures using administrative data containing diagnostic, utilization, and/or procedural codes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

For this retrospective study, administrative databases in an integrated healthcare delivery system were queried between 1/1/2015 and 6/31/2016 to identify patients who had an encounter for a PCI. Using clinical criteria, each encounter was classified via chart review as a valid PCI, then as elective or non-elective. Cases were tested against nine pre-determined algorithms. Performance statistics (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Of 521 PCI encounters reviewed, 497 were valid PCI, 93 of which were elective. An algorithm that excluded emergency room visit events had the highest sensitivity (97.9%, 95%CI 92.5%-99.7%) while an algorithm that included events occurring within 90 days of a cardiologist visit and coronary angiogram or stress test had the highest positive predictive value (62.2%, 95%CI 50.8%-72.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Without an encounter code specific for elective PCI, an algorithm excluding procedures associated with an emergency room visit had the highest sensitivity to identify elective PCI. This offers a reasonable approach to identify elective PCI from administrative data.

Trends in Antihypertensive Medication Monotherapy and Combination Use Among US Adults, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2016

Blood pressure (BP) control rates among US adults taking antihypertensive medication have not increased over the past decade. Many adults require 2 or more classes of antihypertensive medication to achieve guideline-recommended BP goals, but the proportion of US adults taking antihypertensive medication monotherapy, versus combination therapy, has not been quantified using contemporary data. We analyzed data from 2005 to 2008, 2009 to 2012, and 2013 to 2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys to determine trends in monotherapy and combinations of antihypertensive medication classes among US adults age ≥20 years with hypertension taking antihypertensive medication (n=7837). The proportion of US adults taking antihypertensive medication with uncontrolled BP (ie, systolic BP ≥140 or diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg) was 32.3%, 30.2%, and 31.0% in 2005 to 2008, 2009 to 2012, and 2013 to 2016, respectively (Ptrend=0.37). Between 2005 to 2008 and 2013 to 2016, there was no evidence of changes in the proportions of US adults taking antihypertensive monotherapy (39.5%-40.4%, Ptrend=0.67), dual-therapy (37.9%-38.3%, Ptrend=0.75), triple-therapy (17.6%-16.5%, Ptrend=0.36), or quadruple-therapy (4.4%-4.3%, Ptrend=0.93). Between 2005 to 2008 and 2013 to 2016, there was no evidence of changes in the proportions of US adults with uncontrolled BP taking antihypertensive monotherapy (39.3%-40.6%, Ptrend=0.78). A high proportion of US adults with hypertension, including those with uncontrolled BP, are taking one antihypertensive medication class. Increasing the use of dual- and triple-therapy antihypertensive medication regimens may restore the upward trend in BP control rates among US adults.

Multiple-Dose Oral Fosfomycin for Treatment of Complicated Urinary Tract Infections in the Outpatient Setting

Background

Few published studies exist to describe the off-label use of multiple-dose fosfomycin for outpatient treatment of complicated urinary tract infections (UTI). The purpose of this study was to characterize the patients, infections, drug susceptibilities, and outcomes of multiple-dose fosfomycin episodes for outpatient UTI treatment.

Methods

This retrospective study evaluated patients who received an outpatient prescription for multiple-dose fosfomycin between July 1999 and June 2018. Multiple-dose fosfomycin prescriptions dispensed for UTI prophylaxis were excluded. The primary outcome was clinical resolution (complete resolution of signs and symptoms) of infection within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included descriptions of antibiotics and cultures before and after treatment, 30-day bacteriologic resolution (posttreatment urine culture <10³ colony-forming units of the original pathogen), and 90-day healthcare utilizations for UTI or pyelonephritis. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

Of 171 multiple-dose fosfomycin treatment episodes, the most common regimen was 1 dose every 3 days, mean duration of 6.1 days. Clinical resolution occurred in 115 of 171 (67.3%) episodes, and bacteriologic resolution occurred in 37 of 76 (48.7%) episodes with posttreatment cultures. Most patients used antibiotics or had urine cultures before treatment (81.9% and 97.7%, respectively). Additional antibiotic use, urine cultures, and healthcare utilizations within 90 days posttreatment occurred in 51.5%, 66.1%, and 24.6% of patients, respectively.

Conclusions

For treating complicated UTI with multiple-dose fosfomycin, clinical resolution occurred in 2 of 3 treatment episodes and bacteriologic resolution occurred in one-half of treatment episodes. Future research is necessary to determine the relative efficacy and safety and optimal dosing regimen, duration, and population for UTI treatment with multiple-dose fosfomycin.

Cost-Effectiveness and Challenges of Implementing Intensive Blood Pressure Goals and Team-Based Care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Review the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and implementation challenges of intensive blood pressure (BP) control and team-based care initiatives.

RECENT FINDINGS

Intensive BP control is an effective and cost-effective intervention; yet, implementation in routine clinical practice is challenging. Several models of team-based care for hypertension management have been shown to be more effective than usual care to control BP. Additional research is needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of team-based care models relative to one another and as they relate to implementing intensive BP goals. As a focus of healthcare shifts to value (i.e., cost, effectiveness, and patient preferences), formal cost-effectiveness analyses will inform which team-based initiatives hold the highest value in different healthcare settings with different populations and needs. Several challenges, including clinical inertia, financial investment, and billing restrictions for pharmacist-delivered services, will need to be addressed in order to improve public health through intensive BP control and team-based care.

P5239Cost-effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

Background

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are at least as effective as low-molecular weight heparins (LMWH) at preventing recurrence after cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CA-VTE). DOACs are also oral and far less costly, but they may confer a higher bleeding risk than LMWH.

Purpose

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of DOACs and LMWHs for CA-VTE.

Methods

We developed a health state transition model to estimate recurrent VTE, bleeding events, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and direct healthcare costs (2018 United States dollars) associated with DOACs vs. LMWH use. The model had four states: (1) long-term anticoagulation (first 3 months after VTE), (2) extended anticoagulation (more than 3 months after VTE), (3) off anticoagulants, and (4) death. We used a United States healthcare sector perspective, 3-month cycle length, and 1-year time horizon. Event probabilities were derived from the Hokusai Cancer VTE trial and other literature. Event and medication costs were obtained from national sources. We used a threshold of less than $50,000 per QALY gained to define cost-effectiveness.

Results

Compared to LMWH, DOACs were less costly (mean costs: $8,477 vs. $33,917 per year) and similarly effective (mean QALY: 0.616 vs. 0.622). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $4,479,374 per QALY gained with LMWH, indicating that DOACs are cost-effective (Table 1). In threshold analyses, LMWH therapy only became cost-effective when DOAC recurrent VTE risk increased to at least 72% (relative risk vs. LMWH, 6.19) or DOAC clinically relevant bleeding increased to at least 39% (relative risk vs. LMWH, 10.09).

Scenarios Recurrent VTE, % Major bleed, % Mean difference DOAC − LMW ICER DOAC LMWH Relative Risk DOAC LMWH Relative Risk Cost QALY Base case 8.1 11.6 0.71 6.8 4.0 1.75 −$25,440 (−26,496, −24,274) −0.006 (−0.019, 0.008) $4,479,374 DOAC outcome rate threshold at which LMWH becomes cost-effective*   Recurrent VTE 71.5 11.7 6.19 – – – −$6,064 (−7,534, −4,627) −0.121 (−0.136, −0.108) $49,886   Major Bleed – – – 38.9 4.0 10.09 −$2,192 (−3,400, −704) −0.044 (−0.056, −0.030) $49,878 DOAC = direct oral anticoagulant, ICER = incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, LMWH = low-molecular-weight heparin, VTE = venous thromboembolism. Values are mean (95% Uncertainty Interval). Uncertainty was derived from 1,000 stochastic model iterations. *Represents the minimum increased risk with DOAC that would result in LMWH achieving an ICER <$50K per QALY gained.

Conclusion

In this simulation study, DOACs were a cost-effective oral alternative to LMWH for the treatment of CA-VTE. For LMWH to be cost-effective, DOAC event rates needed to be far higher than what is likely to be observed in clinical practice.

Acknowledgement/Funding

Agency for Health Research and Quality R18HS026156

Association of Total Medication Burden With Intensive and Standard Blood Pressure Control and Clinical Outcomes: A Secondary Analysis of SPRINT

Total medication burden (antihypertensive and nonantihypertensive medications) may be associated with poor systolic blood pressure (SBP) control. We investigated the association of baseline medication burden and clinical outcomes and whether the effect of the SBP intervention varied according to baseline medication burden in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial). Participants were randomized to intensive or standard SBP goal (below 120 or 140 mm Hg, respectively); n=3769 participants with high baseline medication burden (≥5 medications) and n=5592 with low burden (<5 medications).

PRIMARY OUTCOME

differences in SBP.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale and modified Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medications measured at baseline and 12 months and incident cardiovascular disease events and serious adverse events throughout the trial. Participants in the intensive group with high versus low medication burden were less likely to achieve their SBP goal at 12 months (risk ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.97) but not in the standard group (risk ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.03; P_interaction<0.001). High medication burden was associated with increased cardiovascular disease events (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.14-1.70) and serious adverse events (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.24-1.45), but the effect of intensive versus standard treatment did not vary between medication burden groups (P_interaction>0.5). Medication burden had minimal association with adherence or satisfaction. High baseline medication burden was associated with worse intensive SBP control and higher rates of cardiovascular disease events and serious adverse events. The relative benefits and risks of intensive SBP goals were similar regardless of medication burden.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION- URL

http://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov. Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Angina Severity, Mortality, and Healthcare Utilization Among Veterans With Stable Angina

Background

Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina severity classification is associated with mortality, myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization in clinical trial and registry data. The objective of this study was to determine associations between CCS class and all‐cause mortality and healthcare utilization, using natural language processing to extract CCS classifications from clinical notes.

Methods and Results

In this retrospective cohort study of veterans in the United States with stable angina from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2013, natural language processing extracted CCS classifications. Veterans with a prior diagnosis of coronary artery disease were excluded. Outcomes included all‐cause mortality (primary), all‐cause and cardiovascular‐specific hospitalizations, coronary revascularization, and 1‐year healthcare costs. Of 299 577 veterans identified, 14 216 (4.7%) had ≥1 CCS classification extracted by natural language processing. The mean age was 66.6±9.8 years, 99% of participants were male, and 81% were white. During a median follow‐up of 3.4 years, all‐cause mortality rates were 4.58, 4.60, 6.22, and 6.83 per 100 person‐years for CCS classes I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratios for all‐cause mortality comparing CCS II, III, and IV with those in class I were 1.05 (95% CI, 0.95–1.15), 1.33 (95% CI, 1.20–1.47), and 1.48 (95% CI, 1.25–1.76), respectively. The multivariable hazard ratio comparing CCS IV with CCS I was 1.20 (95% CI, 1.09–1.33) for all‐cause hospitalization, 1.25 (95% CI, 0.96–1.64) for acute coronary syndrome hospitalizations, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.80–1.26) for heart failure hospitalizations, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.88–1.25) for atrial fibrillation hospitalizations, 1.92 (95% CI, 1.40–2.64) for percutaneous coronary intervention, and 2.51 (95% CI, 1.99–3.16) for coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.

Conclusions

Natural language processing–extracted CCS classification was positively associated with all‐cause mortality and healthcare utilization, demonstrating the prognostic importance of anginal symptom assessment and documentation.

See Editorial Mehta and Bradley

Abstract P208: Association of Baseline Medication Burden With Blood Pressure Control, Patient-Reported Outcomes, and Serious Adverse Events: Findings from the SPRINT Trial

Background: Achieving intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) control (<120 mmHg) requires more antihypertensive medications than standard control (<140 mmHg). It is unclear how total medication burden impacts hypertension outcomes.

Objective: To evaluate the association of total medication burden at baseline and SBP control, serious adverse events (SAEs), medication adherence, and treatment satisfaction in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).

Methods: Baseline medication data were obtained by pill bottle review at randomization and categorized as high (≥ 5 prescription medications) vs low (< 5 medications) medication burden. SBP control per randomization goal, eight item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS 8), and Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire were evaluated at 1-year. SAEs were collected over the trial. We calculated adjusted risk ratios (RR) and hazard ratios (HR) for each outcome associated with medication burden using multivariable regression models stratified by randomized group.

Results: Among 8454 participants with available data at 1-year follow up, 4797 (57%) and 3657 (43%) had high and low medication burden, respectively (mean medications ± SD; 8 ± 3 vs 3 ± 1). High medication burden was associated with reduced SBP control in the intensive arm (RR, 95%CI; intensive 0.92, 0.87-0.98; standard 0.98, 0.94-1.03; interaction p 0.01) and increased SAEs in both arms (HR, 95%CI; intensive 1.57, 1.40-1.77; standard 1.59, 1.41-1.78; interaction p 0.54). High medication burden was associated with worse medication adherence in the intensive arm and improved adherence in the standard arm (RR for MMAS 8 ≥6, 95%CI; intensive 0.97, 0.94-1.00; standard 1.05, 1.02-1.09; interaction p <0.01). High medication burden was not associated with hypertension treatment satisfaction (RR for satisfied/very satisfied, 95%CI; intensive 0.99, 0.98-1.00; standard 0.98, 0.97-1.00; interaction p 0.50).

Conclusion: In SPRINT, high medication burden at baseline was associated with higher risk of SAEs. The association of high medication burden on the likelihood of achieving SBP goal and medication adherence at 1 year was different by treatment arm; medication burden was not associated with hypertension treatment satisfaction.