Frequency and correlates of treatment intensification for elevated cholesterol levels in patients with cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Although current performance measures define low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels <100 mg/dL in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) as good quality, they provide a snapshot and do not address whether treatment intensification was performed to manage elevated LDL-C levels. METHODS: We determined the proportion of patients with CVD (n = 22,888) with LDL-C <100 mg/dL and the proportion with uncontrolled LDL-C levels (≥100 mg/dL) who received treatment intensification within the 45-day follow-up in a Veterans Affairs Network. We evaluated facility, provider, and patient correlates of treatment intensification. RESULTS: Low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol levels were at goal in 16,350 (71.4%) patients. An additional 2,093 (one third of those eligible for treatment intensification) received treatment intensification. Controlling for clustering between facilities and patient's illness severity: history of diabetes (odds ratio [OR] 1.15, 95% CI 1.01-1.32), hypertension (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.42), good medication adherence (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.91-2.54), and a higher number of lipid panels (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.14-1.27) were associated with treatment intensification. Patients older than 75 years (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.56-0.75) and women (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43-1.00) were less likely to receive treatment intensification. Teaching status of the facility, physician or specialist primary care provider, and patient's race were not associated with treatment intensification. CONCLUSIONS: Only one third of the CVD patients with elevated LDL-C received treatment intensification. Diabetic and hypertensive patients were more likely to receive treatment intensification, whereas, older patients, female patients, and patients with poor medication adherence were less likely to receive treatment intensification. Our findings highlight areas for quality improvement initiatives.

Correlates of repeat lipid testing in patients with coronary heart disease.

IMPORTANCE: Understanding the frequency and correlates of redundant lipid testing could identify areas for quality improvement initiatives aimed at improving the efficiency of cholesterol care in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and correlates of repeat lipid testing in patients with CHD who attained low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals and received no treatment intensification. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We assessed the proportion of patients with LDL-C levels of less than 100 mg/dL and no intensification of lipid-lowering therapy who underwent repeat lipid testing during an 11-month follow-up period. We performed logistic regression analyses to evaluate facility, provider, and patient characteristics associated with repeat testing. In total, we analyzed 35,191 patients with CHD in a Veterans Affairs network of 7 medical centers with associated community-based outpatient clinics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Frequency and correlates of repeat lipid testing in patients having CHD with LDL-C levels of less than 100 mg/dL and no further treatment intensification with lipid-lowering therapies. RESULTS: Of 27,947 patients with LDL-C levels of less than 100 mg/dL, 9200 (32.9%) had additional lipid assessments without treatment intensification during the following 11 months (12 ,686 total additional panels; mean, 1.38 additional panel per patient). Adjusting for facility-level clustering, patients with a history of diabetes mellitus (odds ratio [OR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.22), a history of hypertension (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.13-1.30), higher illness burden (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.23-1.57), and more frequent primary care visits (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.25-1.39) were more likely to undergo repeat testing, whereas patients receiving care at a teaching facility (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80) or from a physician provider (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.98) and those with a medication possession ratio of 0.8 or higher (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80) were less likely to undergo repeat testing. Among 13,114 patients who met the optional LDL-C target level of less than 70 mg/dL, repeat lipid testing was performed in 8177 (62.4% of those with LDL-C levels of <70 mg/dL) during 11 follow-up months. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: One-third of patients having CHD with LDL-C levels at goal underwent repeat lipid panels. Our results highlight areas for quality improvement initiatives to reduce redundant lipid testing. These efforts would be more important if the forthcoming cholesterol guidelines adopt a medication dose-based approach in place of the current treat-to-target approach.

Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol reporting and goal attainment in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines established non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) as a secondary treatment target. However, non-HDL-C levels are not reported on standard lipid panels by many hospital-based and/or commercial biochemical laboratories. OBJECTIVE: We determined whether reporting non-HDL-C was associated with improved non-HDL-C goal attainment. METHODS: We identified patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and/or diabetes receiving care within the Veterans Health Administration. We matched a facility that reported non-HDL-C levels on lipid panels (3994 CVD and 5108 diabetes patients) to a facility with similar size, patient complexity, and academic mission that did not report non-HDL-C (4269 CVD and 6591 diabetes patients). We performed patient-level analysis to assess differences in non-HDL-C from baseline to the most recent lipid panel at these facilities. RESULTS: Baseline non-HDL-C levels for CVD patients were 114 mg/dL and 107 mg/dL at the reporting and nonreporting facilities, respectively. At 2.3-year follow-up, non-HDL-C levels decreased at both facilities but by a greater amount at the reporting facility (-11 mg/dL vs -3 mg/dL at the nonreporting facility, P < .001). Results remained significant (P < .001) after we adjusted for patient's age, race, gender, illness burden, history of diabetes, hypertension, medication adherence, statin use, number of lipid panels, and number of primary care visits between baseline and follow-up. Reductions were greater among CVD patients with triglycerides ≥200 mg/dL (-25 mg/dL vs -16 mg/dL at the respective facilities, P = .004). Results were similar in diabetes patients. Reporting was also associated with greater proportions of patients meeting non-HDL-C treatment goal of <130 mg/dL. CONCLUSION: Non-HDL-C reporting could improve non-HDL-C goal attainment.