Treatment Variability Among Patients Hospitalized for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: An Analysis of the 2016 to 2018 US National Inpatient Sample.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about treatment variability across US hospitals for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were collected from the 2016 to 2018 National Inpatient Sample. All patients aged ≥18 years, admitted to nonfederal US hospitals with a primary diagnosis of CLTI, were identified. Patients were classified according to their clinical presentation (rest pain, skin ulceration, or gangrene) and were further characterized according to the treatment strategy used. The primary outcome of interest was variability in CLTI treatment, as characterized by the median odds ratio. The median odds ratio is defined as the likelihood that 2 similar patients would be treated with a given modality at 1 versus another randomly selected hospital. There were 15 896 (weighted n=79 480) hospitalizations identified where CLTI was the primary diagnosis. Medical therapy alone, endovascular revascularization ± amputation, surgical revascularization ± amputation, and amputation alone were used in 4057 (25%), 5390 (34%), 3733 (24%), and 2716 (17%) patients, respectively. After adjusting for both patient- and hospital-related factors, the median odds ratio (95% CI) for medical therapy alone, endovascular revascularization ± amputation, surgical revascularization ± amputation, any revascularization, and amputation alone were 1.28 (1.19-1.38), 1.86 (1.77-1.95), 1.65 (1.55-1.74), 1.37 (1.28-1.45), and 1.42 (1.27-1.55), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variability in CLTI treatment exists across US hospitals and is not fully explained by patient or hospital characteristics.

In-hospital Outcomes and Cost Associated With Treatments for Non-ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Background: Although variation in the management of patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is well documented across US hospitals, few data exist characterizing variation in outcomes following specific management strategies. Methods: Admissions for NSTEMI to hospitals performing coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery between 2016 and 2018 were identified from the National Inpatient Sample. Patients were categorized according to treatment rendered (medical therapy alone, angiography without revascularization, PCI, or CABG). The primary end point was variation in the incidence of composite in-hospital death, postprocedure myocardial infarction, or stroke, stratified by treatment rendered. Secondary outcomes included variation in length of stay (LOS), cost, and use of each treatment modality. Variation was characterized by the median odds ratio. Results: Among 140,194 hospitalizations for NSTEMI, 35,748 (25.5%) patients received medical therapy alone, 28,678 (20.5%) underwent angiography without revascularization, 58,383 (41.6%) underwent PCI, and 17,385 (12.4%) underwent CABG. Despite adjusting for patient- and hospital-related factors, 2 similar patients were 25% more likely to experience the composite primary outcome following PCI and 45% more likely following CABG at 1 randomly selected hospital than at another. Significant hospital-level variations in LOS and cost were also apparent following each treatment modality. Conclusions: In a large national analysis of hospitalizations for NSTEMI, significant variation was observed in clinical outcome, LOS, and cost associated with each treatment modality, despite adjustment for patient- and hospital-related factors.

Comparative Resistance to Teriparatide-Induced Bone Resorption With Denosumab or Alendronate.

CONTEXT: In postmenopausal osteoporotic women, denosumab fully inhibits teriparatide-induced bone resorption at approved doses. This property of denosumab is distinct from that of alendronate and likely contributes to the efficacy of combination denosumab and teriparatide therapy. Whether denosumab fully inhibits bone resorption when challenged by a higher dose of teriparatide is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to define the comparative ability of denosumab and alendronate to block the acute proresorptive effects of high-dose teriparatide. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this randomized controlled trial, bone resorption (serum C-telopeptide [CTX]) was measured in 25 postmenopausal women prior to and 4 hours after a single 40-µg sc teriparatide injection. Subjects then received either a single injection of denosumab 60 mg or oral alendronate 70 mg weekly for 8 weeks. After 8 weeks, serum CTX was again measured before and 4 hours after a teriparatide a 40-µg injection. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the teriparatide-induced change in CTX from baseline to week 8. RESULTS: At baseline, 40 µg of teriparatide induced similar 4-hour increases in mean CTX in both groups (alendronate 47% ± 14%, denosumab 46% ± 16%). After 8 weeks, teriparatide was still able to stimulate bone resorption in women treated with alendronate (mean CTX increase of 43% ± 29%) but not in women treated with denosumab (-7% ± 11%; P < .001 for between group comparison). CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab, but not alendronate, fully inhibits the ability of high-dose teriparatide to increase bone resorption acutely. These results suggest that combining denosumab with a more potent anabolic stimulus may result in greater separation between bone resorption and formation and hence greater increases in bone mass.

Two years of Denosumab and teriparatide administration in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (The DATA Extension Study): a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Current osteoporosis medications increase bone mineral density (BMD) modestly and reduce, but do not eliminate, fracture risk. Attempts to improve efficacy by administering anabolic agents and bisphosphonates concomitantly have been unsuccessful. Conversely, 12 months of concomitant denosumab and teriparatide therapy increases BMD more than either drug alone. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether 24 months of combined denosumab and teriparatide will increase hip and spine BMD more than either individual agent. DESIGN: Preplanned continuation of the Denosumab and Teriparatide Administration (DATA) randomized controlled trial in which postmenopausal osteoporotic women received teriparatide (20 µg daily), denosumab (60 mg every 6 months), or both medications for 24 months. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 94 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. OUTCOME MEASURES: Lumbar spine, femoral neck, total hip, and distal radius BMD and serum markers of bone turnover were measured. RESULTS: At 24 months, lumbar spine BMD increased more in the combination group (12.9 ± 5.0%) than in either the teriparatide (9.5 ± 5.9%, P = .01) or denosumab (8.3 ± 3.4%, P = .008) groups. Femoral neck BMD also increased more in the combination group (6.8 ± 3.6%) than in either the teriparatide (2.8 ± 3.9%, P = .003) or denosumab (4.1 ± 3.8%, P = .008) groups. Similarly, total hip BMD increased more in the combination group (6.3 ± 2.6%) than in the teriparatide (2.0 ± 3.0%) or denosumab (3.2 ± 2.5%) groups (P < .001 for both). Although spine and hip BMD continued to increase in the second year in all groups, these year 2 increases did not differ among groups. Serum C-telopeptide and N-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen were equally suppressed in the denosumab and combination groups, whereas osteocalcin decreased more in the denosumab group than in the combination group, a difference that persisted, but lessened, in the second year of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Two years of concomitant teriparatide and denosumab therapy increases BMD more than therapy with either medication alone and more than has been reported with any current therapy. The combination of these agents may prove to be an important treatment option in patients at high risk of fracture.