Achievement of LDL-C <55 mg/dL among US adults: Findings from the cvMOBIUS2 registry.

BACKGROUND: Reflecting clinical trial data showing improved outcomes with lower LDL-C levels, guidelines across the globe are increasingly recommending a goal of LDL-C <55 mg/dL in persons with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). What proportion of patients with ASCVD are already meeting those goals in the US remains understudied. METHODS: Using electronic health record data from 8 large US health systems, we evaluated lipid-lowering therapy (LLT), LDL-C levels, and factors associated with an LDL-C <55 mg/dL in persons with ASCVD treated between 1/1/2021-12/31/2021. Multivariable modeling was used to evaluate factors associated with achievement of an LDL-C <55 mg/dL. RESULTS: Among 167,899 eligible patients, 22.6% (38,016) had an LDL-C <55 mg/dL. While 76.1% of individuals overall were on a statin, only 38.2% were on a high-intensity statin, 5.9% were on ezetimibe, and 1.7% were on a PCSK9i monoclonal antibody (mAb). Factors associated with lower likelihood of achieving an LDL-C <55 mg/dL included: younger age (odds ratio [OR] 0.91 per 10y), female sex (OR 0.69), Black race (OR 0.76), and noncoronary artery disease forms of ASCVD including peripheral artery disease (OR 0.72) and cerebrovascular disease (OR 0.85), while high-intensity statin use was associated with increased odds of LDL-C <55 mg/dL (OR 1.55). Combination therapy (statin+ezetimibe or statin+PCSK9i mAb) was rare (4.4% and 0.5%, respectively) and was associated with higher odds of an LDL-C <55 mg/dL (OR 1.39 and 3.13, respectively). CONCLUSION: Less than a quarter of US patients with ASCVD in community practice are already achieving an LDL-C <55 mg/dL. Marked increases in utilization of both high intensity statins and combination therapy with non-statin therapy will be needed to achieve LDL-C levels <55 mg/dL at the population level in secondary prevention.

Association between characteristics of employing healthcare facilities and healthcare worker infection rates and psychosocial experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare facility characteristics, such as ownership, size, and location, have been associated with patient outcomes. However, it is not known whether the outcomes of healthcare workers are associated with the characteristics of their employing healthcare facilities, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was an analysis of a nationwide registry of healthcare workers (the Healthcare Worker Exposure Response and Outcomes (HERO) registry). Participants were surveyed on their personal, employment, and medical characteristics, as well as our primary study outcomes of COVID-19 infection, access to personal protective equipment, and burnout. Participants from healthcare sites with at least ten respondents were included, and these sites were linked to American Hospital Association data to extract information about sites, including number of beds, teaching status, urban/rural location, and for-profit status. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate linear regression models for the unadjusted and adjusted associations between healthcare facility characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 8,941 healthcare workers from 97 clinical sites were included in the study. After adjustment for participant demographics, healthcare role, and medical comorbidities, facility for-profit status was associated with greater odds of COVID-19 diagnosis (aOR 1.76, 95% CI 1.02-3.03, p = .042). Micropolitan location was associated with decreased odds of COVID-19 infection after adjustment (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.24, 0.71, p = .002. For-profit facility status was associated with decreased odds of burnout after adjustment (aOR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.98), p = .044). CONCLUSIONS: For-profit status of employing healthcare facilities was associated with greater odds of COVID-19 diagnosis but decreased odds of burnout after adjustment for demographics, healthcare role, and medical comorbidities. Future research to understand the relationship between facility ownership status and healthcare outcomes is needed to promote wellbeing in the healthcare workforce. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The registry was prospectively registered: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (trial registration number) NCT04342806, submitted April 8, 2020.

Nursing Home Workers' Experience During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: To understand nursing home workers' experience during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and investigate the prevalence of health-related quality of life, emotional distress, job satisfaction, and the impact of the pandemic. METHOD: The Healthcare Worker Exposure Response and Outcomes (HERO) Registry served as the data source for this descriptive cross-sectional analysis. Recruitment was conducted nationally. Eligible nursing home workers (N = 1,409) enrolled in the study online, self-reported demographic and employment characteristics, and completed electronic surveys. RESULTS: Nursing home workers reported overall good physical health, frequent depressive symptoms, burnout, and a high prevalence of feeling tired, stressed, having trouble sleeping, and feeling worried. Age and race were found to be positively associated with the impact of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Findings demonstrate the difficulties and challenges nursing home workers faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future research needs to evaluate the relationships among nursing home workers' roles, mental health, depressive symptoms, and prevalence of burnout with a larger, more diverse sample. [Research in Gerontological Nursing, 17(3), 131-140.].

Comparative effectiveness of azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil for myasthenia gravis (PROMISE-MG): a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Myasthenia gravis is an autoimmune disorder of the neuromuscular junction. Treatment typically includes symptomatic oral cholinesterase inhibitors, immunosuppression, and immunomodulation. In addition to corticosteroids, azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil are the most frequently used immunosuppressants in North America. We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of these two drugs, and to assess the effect of the dose and duration of treatment. METHODS: We did a prospective cohort study at 19 academic centres in Canada and the USA. We included patients (aged ≥18 years) with autoimmune myasthenia gravis, who were never treated with immunosuppressants. Treating clinicians determined the choice of medication, dose, follow-up intervals, and drug monitoring. Outcome measures and adverse events were recorded at each visit. We assessed two co-primary outcomes. The first was the patient-reported Myasthenia Gravis-Quality of Life 15-revised (MGQOL-15r) score, measured as the mean change from treatment initiation to the follow-up visit with the lowest score. A clinically meaningful reduction (CMR) in MGQOL-15r was defined as a 5-point decrease. The second was a composite clinical outcome of disease improvement (Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America Post-Intervention Status Minimal Manifestations or better) and low adverse event burden (defined as grade ≤1 Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). We also compared these outcomes in patients receiving an adequate dose and duration of azathioprine (≥2 mg/kg per day for at least 12 months) or mycophenolate mofetil (≥2 g per day for at least 8 months) and a lower dose or shorter duration of these agents. We used propensity score weighting with generalised linear regression models. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03490539). FINDINGS: Between May 1, 2018, and Aug 31, 2020, 167 patients were enrolled; 85 did not receive azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil and were excluded. Four were excluded from outcome analyses because they had scores of 0 on an outcome measure at treatment initiation. Of the 78 patients included in analyses, 47 received mycophenolate mofetil (median follow-up 25 months [IQR 13·5-31·5]) and 31 received azathioprine (median follow-up 20 months [IQR 13-30]). The mean change in MG-QOL15r was -10·4 (95% CI -18·9 to -1·3) with mycophenolate mofetil and -6·8 (-17·2 to 3·6) with azathioprine (mean difference -3·3, 95% CI -7·7 to 1·2; p=0·15). 38 (81%) of 47 patients receiving mycophenolate mofetil and 18 (57%) of 31 receiving azathioprine had a CMR in MG-QOL15r (risk difference 24·0%; 95% CI -0·2 to 48·0; p=0·052). The clinical composite outcome was achieved in 22 (47·7%) of 47 patients who received mycophenolate mofetil and nine (28·1%) of 31 who received azathioprine (risk difference 19·6%, 95% CI -4·9 to 44·2; p=0·12). Descriptive analysis did not find a difference in the proportion of patients reaching a CMR in MG-QOL15r between the adequate dose and duration group and the lower dose or shorter duration group. Adverse events occurred in 11 (32%) of 34 patients who received azathioprine and nine (19%) of 48 who received mycophenolate mofetil. The most frequent adverse events were hepatotoxicity with azathioprine (five [15%] of 34) and gastrointestinal disturbances (seven [15%] of 48) with mycophenolate mofetil. There were no study-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: More than half of patients treated with azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil felt their quality of life improved; no difference in clinical outcomes was noted between the two drugs. Adverse events associated with azathioprine were potentially more serious than those with mycophenolate mofetil, although mycophenolate mofetil is teratogenic. Lower than recommended doses of azathioprine might be effective, with reduced dose-dependent adverse events. More comparative effectiveness studies are required to inform treatment choices in myasthenia gravis. FUNDING: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America.

Optimal Medical Therapy and Outcomes Among Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Optimal medical therapy (OMT) scoring may stratify clinical risk in real-world chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by integrating use and dosing of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HFrEF. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to characterize patients and associated long-term clinical outcomes by OMT score-derived treatment groups. METHODS: CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) included U.S. outpatients with chronic HFrEF receiving ≥1 GDMT. OMT subgroups were defined as suboptimal (score <3), acceptable (score = 3), and optimal (score ≥4) by baseline use and dose of GDMT, as proposed by the HF Collaboratory consortium. Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to assess for all-cause and cardiovascular death across subgroups, after adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates. RESULTS: The authors studied 4,582 participants enrolled in CHAMP-HF with available 2-year follow-up. Median age was 68 years, 1,327 (29%) were women, and 2,842 (62%) were White, non-Hispanic. Median OMT score across the population was 4 (Q1-Q3: 2-5), and 1,628 (35%) had suboptimal, 665 (14%) had acceptable, and 2,289 (50%) had optimal therapy. Participants with optimal treatment were younger, had higher annual household income, and were enrolled from practices with dedicated HF clinics (all P < 0.001) than participants with acceptable or suboptimal treatment. Participants with optimal treatment had lower all-cause death (adjusted HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.64-0.92) and cardiovascular death (adjusted HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.65-0.96) than those with suboptimal treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Across a large cohort of chronic ambulatory HFrEF, OMT scores stratified risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death.

Association of Medication Adherence and Health Status in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Insights From the CHAMP-HF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The foundation for managing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy. Finding an association between medication adherence and patients' health status (their symptoms, function, and quality of life) can be used to underscore its importance to patients. METHODS: The association of self-reported medication adherence in US outpatients with HFrEF enrolled in the Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure registry from 2015 to 2017 was compared with their health status at baseline and 12 months later. A secondary analysis of changes in adherence between baseline and 6 months with 6-month health status was also performed. Medication adherence was assessed with the self-reported 4-item Morisky-Green-Levine Medication Adherence Scale, with scores ≥1 classified as nonadherent. The primary health status outcome was the disease-specific 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OS; range, 0-100; higher is better). Robust linear regression models adjusted for confounders were used. RESULTS: After excluding those who died (n=316) or did not provide 12-month KCCQ (n=1285), 3495 outpatients with HFrEF were included, of whom 1108 (31.7%) reported being nonadherent. Nonadherent participants were younger, had significantly worse baseline health status (-5.83-point difference; P<0.001), and showed less improvement at 12 months (-1.7-point difference in mean change; P=0.017) than adherent participants. Among nonadherent patients at baseline, those whose adherence improved trended toward greater 6-month health status improvements than those remaining nonadherent (fully adjusted difference of 2.52 points; P=0.054). CONCLUSIONS: In HFrEF, medication nonadherence was associated with worse health status and less improvement over the following year. Improvements in adherence were associated with better health status than remaining nonadherent, underscoring the importance of supporting adherence with guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with HFrEF.

Clopidogrel use after myocardial revascularization: prevalence, predictors, and one-year survival rate

Abstract Introduction: Antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) has been used. Little is known about the predictors and efficacy of clopidogrel in this scenario. Objective: Identify predictors of clopidogrel following CABG. Methods: We evaluated 5404 patients who underwent CABG between 2000 and 2009 at Duke University Medical Center. We excluded patients undergoing concomitant valve surgery, those who had postoperative bleeding or death before discharge. Postoperative clopidogrel was left to the discretion of the attending physician. Adjusted risk for 1-year mortality was compared between patients receiving and not receiving clopidogrel during hospitalization after undergoing CABG. Results: At hospital discharge, 931 (17.2%) patients were receiving clopidogrel. Comparing patients not receiving clopidogrel at discharge, users had more comorbidities, including hyperlipidemia, hypertension, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease and cerebrovascular disease. Patients who received aspirin during hospitalization were less likely to receive clopidogrel at discharge (P≤0.0001). Clopidogrel was associated with similar 1-year mortality compared with those who did not use clopidogrel (4.4% vs. 4.5%, P=0.72). There was, however, an interaction between the use of cardiopulmonary bypass and clopidogrel, with lower 1-year mortality in patients undergoing off-pump CABG who received clopidogrel, but not those undergoing conventional CABG (2.6% vs 5.6%, P Interaction = 0.032). Conclusion: Clopidogrel was used in nearly one-fifth of patients after CABG. Its use was not associated with lower mortality after 1 year in general, but lower mortality rate in those undergoing off-pump CABG. Randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the benefit of routine use of clopidogrel in CABG.