Patterns and predictors of lipid-lowering therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and/or diabetes mellitus in 2014: Insights from a large US managed-care population.

BACKGROUND: Lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with statins reduces risk of cardiovascular events. We examined patterns and predictors of filled prescriptions for lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) in subgroups of patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and/or diabetes mellitus (DM). HYPOTHESIS: Statin treatment remains underutilized across subgroups of high CV risk patients. METHODS: Patients in the Optum Research Database with these criteria were included: age ≥20 years, 2 years continuous enrollment, and ASCVD and/or DM. Patients were hierarchically classified by the presence of recent acute coronary syndrome, other coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), or only DM. Predictors of filled LLT regimens were examined using multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 1 055 932 individuals met all inclusion criteria. Evidence by point-in-time analysis of filled (not only written) statin prescriptions was 45% for the overall cohort. By subgroups, this was 62%, 52%, 43%, 36%, and 40% for recent acute coronary syndrome, other coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, PAD, and only DM, respectively. Predictors of higher rates of any statin regimen included age 50 to 69 years, male sex, absence of comorbidities, and filled prescriptions of other standard-of-care therapies. CONCLUSIONS: In 2014, only 49% of patients with ASCVD and 40% with only DM had evidence for a filled statin prescription. Those with indications of ischemic stroke, PAD, and DM were less likely to receive statins than those with coronary conditions. Other characteristics such as advanced age, female sex, and noncardiac conditions predicted less statin utilization, thereby representing good targets for quality improvement.

Gender Disparities in Lipid-Lowering Therapy in Cardiovascular Disease: Insights from a Managed Care Population.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have documented the strong inverse relationship between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, women are less likely to be screened for hypercholesterolemia, receive lipid-lowering therapy (LLT), and achieve optimal LDL-C levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were extracted from a U.S. administrative claims database between January 2008 and December 2012 for patients with established ASCVD. The earliest date of valid LDL-C value was defined as the index date. Patients were followed for ±12 months from the index date and were stratified by gender, by baseline LDL-C level, and whether they were initially treated with a LLT then propensity score matched by gender using demographic and clinical characteristics. Both descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to explore the association of gender with the frequency of LDL-C monitoring, LLT treatment initiation in initially untreated patients, and prescribing patterns in initially treated patients. RESULTS: A total of 76,414 subjects with established ASCVD were identified; 42% of the sample was women. In the unmatched cohort, 50.3% of men and 32.0% of women were prescribed a preindex statin (p < 0.0001). Among matched patients (n = 51,764), women initially treated with LLT were significantly less likely to receive a prescription for a higher potency LLT. Even among those with LDL-C levels above 160 mg/dL, women were more likely to discontinue LLT, odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 1.8 (1.2-2.3). Female gender and older age were significant predictors of discontinuation, and the potency of the index medication was the strongest predictor of dose titration. Initially untreated women were less likely to initiate LLT treatment than men, irrespective of index LDL-C levels (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The observed disparities further reinforce the need for targeted efforts to reduce the gender gap for secondary prevention in women at high risk of cardiovascular disease.

Young Hispanic Women Experience Higher In-Hospital Mortality Following an Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Although mortality rates for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have declined for men and women, prior studies have reported a sex gap in mortality such that younger women were most likely to die after an AMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: We sought to explore the impact of race and ethnicity on the sex gap in AMI patterns of care and mortality for younger women in a contemporary patient cohort. We constructed multivariable hierarchical logistic regression models to examine trends in AMI hospitalizations, procedures, and in-hospital mortality by sex, age (<65 and ≥65 years), and race/ethnicity (white, black, and Hispanic). Analyses were derived from 194 071 patients who were hospitalized for an AMI with available race and ethnicity data from the 2009-2010 National Inpatient Sample. Hospitalization rates, procedures (coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary interventions, and cardiac bypass surgery), and inpatient mortality were analyzed across age, sex, and race/ethnic groups. There was significant variation in hospitalization rates by age and race/ethnicity. All racial/ethnic groups were less likely to undergo invasive procedures compared with white men (P<0.001). After adjustment for comorbidities, younger Hispanic women experienced higher in-hospital mortality compared with younger white men, with an odds ratio of 1.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.9), adjusted for age and comorbidities. CONCLUSION: We found significant racial and sex disparities in AMI hospitalizations, care patterns, and mortality, with higher in-hospital mortality experienced by younger Hispanic women. Future studies are necessary to explore determinants of these significant racial and sex disparities in outcomes for AMI.

Frequency of high-risk patients not receiving high-potency statin (from a large managed care database).

We examined trends in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal attainment in high-risk patients and use of high-potency statins (HPS) in a large, managed-care database from 2004 to 2012. The 2013 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology prevention guidelines recommend that subjects with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) should be prescribed HPS therapy, irrespective of LDL-C levels. Previous guidelines recommend an LDL-C target <70 mg/dl. Patients diagnosed with ASCVD based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes with ≥1 LDL-C test from January 2004 to December 2012 were identified in the Optum Insight database. Patients were identified as treated if they received lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) within 90 days of the LDL-C measurement and untreated if they did not receive LLT treatment. LLT treated patients were stratified into HPS users or non-HPS LLT users. There were 45,101 eligible patients in 2004 and 40,846 in 2012. The proportion of high-risk patients who were treated with LLT increased from 61.4% (2004) to 70.5% (2008) then remained relatively constant until 2012 (67.9%). Mean LDL-C values in treated patients decreased from 103.7 ± 32.1 (2004) to 90.8 ± 31.4 mg/dl (2012). The proportion of patients treated with HPS increased from 13% in 2004 to 26% in 2012. Although the proportion of treated high-risk patients who achieve LDL-C <70 mg/dl levels has increased sharply from 2004, approximately 3 of 4 patients still did not meet this target. Only 1/4 of ASCVD patients are on HPS. In conclusion, our findings highlight the need for renewed efforts to support guideline-based LDL-C treatment for high-risk patients.

National trends in patient safety for four common conditions, 2005-2011.

BACKGROUND: Changes in adverse-event rates among Medicare patients with common medical conditions and conditions requiring surgery remain largely unknown. METHODS: We used Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System data abstracted from medical records on 21 adverse events in patients hospitalized in the United States between 2005 and 2011 for acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, pneumonia, or conditions requiring surgery. We estimated trends in the rate of occurrence of adverse events for which patients were at risk, the proportion of patients with one or more adverse events, and the number of adverse events per 1000 hospitalizations. RESULTS: The study included 61,523 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (19%), congestive heart failure (25%), pneumonia (30%), and conditions requiring surgery (27%). From 2005 through 2011, among patients with acute myocardial infarction, the rate of occurrence of adverse events declined from 5.0% to 3.7% (difference, 1.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7 to 1.9), the proportion of patients with one or more adverse events declined from 26.0% to 19.4% (difference, 6.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.3 to 10.2), and the number of adverse events per 1000 hospitalizations declined from 401.9 to 262.2 (difference, 139.7; 95% CI, 90.6 to 189.0). Among patients with congestive heart failure, the rate of occurrence of adverse events declined from 3.7% to 2.7% (difference, 1.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.5 to 1.4), the proportion of patients with one or more adverse events declined from 17.5% to 14.2% (difference, 3.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.0 to 5.5), and the number of adverse events per 1000 hospitalizations declined from 235.2 to 166.9 (difference, 68.3; 95% CI, 39.9 to 96.7). Patients with pneumonia and those with conditions requiring surgery had no significant declines in adverse-event rates. CONCLUSIONS: From 2005 through 2011, adverse-event rates declined substantially among patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction or congestive heart failure but not among those hospitalized for pneumonia or conditions requiring surgery. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and others.).

Changes in LDL-C levels and goal attainment associated with addition of ezetimibe to simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin compared with titrating statin monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Many high-risk coronary heart disease (CHD) patients on statin monotherapy do not achieve guideline-recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals, and combination lipid-lowering therapy may be considered for these individuals. The effect of adding ezetimibe to simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin therapy versus titrating these statins on LDL-C changes and goal attainment in CHD or CHD risk-equivalent patients was assessed in a large, managed-care database in the US. METHODS: Eligible patients (n=17,830), initially on statin monotherapy who were ≥18 years with baseline and follow-up LDL-C values, no concomitant use of other lipid-lowering therapy, and on lipid-lowering therapy for ≥42 days, were identified between November 1, 2002 and September 30, 2009. The percent change from baseline in LDL-C levels and the odds ratios for attainment of LDL-C<1.8 and <2.6 mmol/L (70 and 100 mg/dL) were estimated using an analysis of covariance and logistic regression, respectively, adjusted for various baseline factors. RESULTS: LDL-C reductions from baseline and goal attainment improved substantially in patients treated with ezetimibe added onto simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin therapy (n=2,312) versus those (n=13,053) who titrated these statins. In multivariable models, percent change from baseline in LDL-C was -13.1% to -14.8% greater for those who added ezetimibe onto simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin versus those who titrated. The odds of attaining LDL-C<1.8 and <2.6 mmol/L (70 and 100 mg/dL) increased by 2.6-3.2-fold and 2.5-3.1-fold, respectively, in patients who added ezetimibe onto simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin versus titrating statins. CONCLUSION: CHD/CHD risk-equivalent patients in a large US managed-care database, who added ezetimibe onto simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin, had greater LDL-C reductions and goal attainment than those who uptitrated these statin therapies. Our study suggests that high-risk CHD patients in need of more intensive LDL-C lowering therapy may benefit by adding ezetimibe onto statin therapy.

Lessons learned from a survey of the diagnosis and treatment journeys of postmenopausal women with hypertension.

In this qualitative, experiential study, 300 members of the database of WomenHeart: The National Coalition for Women With Heart Disease completed an online survey about hypertension diagnosis and treatment, patient education, and perceptions of this and related conditions. Based on the findings from the survey, characteristics of the prototypical journey were identified. To the extent to which the surveyed WomenHeart members represent typical experiences, this survey provides insights into common hurdles women encounter in their journey throughout the hypertension diagnosis and treatment process. Results of this study suggest the need for a patient-centric approach to hypertension management and to implement programs with the intention of comprehensively assessing and meeting individual needs. Further studies would be of value to expand on patients' journeys in the management of hypertension and identify the types of products, services, and programming that most effectively support treatment adherence and achievement of optimal blood pressure control.

Characteristics of women lost to follow-up in cardiovascular community health interventions: findings from the Sister to Sister campaign.

Community-based interventions (CBI) have been targeted as a potential means of tackling cardiovascular disease in women. However, there have been mixed results in terms of their impact on health, with at least some of this being attributed to high attrition rates. This study explores factors that may be contributing to the low retention of women in cardiovascular CBIs. In 2009, Sister to Sister, a national organization that sponsors community health fairs, provided free cardiovascular health screenings for a total of 9,443 women nationwide. All participants were invited to enroll in a 1 year, survey-based observational study to assess the effectiveness of these community health screenings. Of these 9,443 women, 5.9 % actively participated in the follow-up study. Participants were more likely to have health insurance (75.5 vs. 65.3 %, p < 0.001), have an annual income above 75,000 dollars (26.7 vs. 19.7 %, p < 0.001), and identify themselves as white (50.0 vs. 31.5 %, p < 0.001). They were also more likely to have hypertension (32.1 vs. 27.4 %, p = 0.018) and metabolic syndrome (35.7 vs. 20.4 %, p < 0.001). Our results suggest that white, affluent women with health insurance and cardiovascular risk factors are more likely to engage in CBIs that require longitudinal assessment. This study gives insight into the demographics, socioeconomic status, and cardiovascular comorbidities of women who participate in cardiovascular CBIs. The results may prove to be useful in understanding the biopsychosocial barriers to participation in CBIs in order to develop more effective interventions in the future.

A comparison of non-HDL and LDL cholesterol goal attainment in a large, multinational patient population: the Lipid Treatment Assessment Project 2.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the success in attaining non-HDL-cholesterol (non-HDL-C) goals in the multinational L-TAP 2 study. METHODS: 9955 patients ≥20 years of age with dyslipidemia on stable lipid-lowering therapy were enrolled from nine countries. RESULTS: Success rates for non-HDL-C goals were 86% in low, 70% in moderate, and 52% in high-risk patients (63% overall). In patients with triglycerides of >200 mg/dL success rates for non-HDL-C goals were 35% vs. 69% in those with ≤200 mg/dL (p < 0.0001). Among patients attaining their LDL-C goal, 18% did not attain their non-HDL-C goal. In those with coronary disease and at least two risk factors, only 34% and 30% attained respectively their non-HDL-C and LDL-C goals. Rates of failure in attaining both LDL-C and non-HDL-C goals were highest in Latin America. CONCLUSIONS: Non-HDL-C goal attainment lagged behind LDL-C goal attainment; this gap was greatest in higher-risk patients.

Comparison of lipid profiles and attainment of lipid goals in patients <65 years versus patients ≥65 years (from the Lipid Treatment Assessment Project [L-TAP] 2).

There is a well-established link between dyslipidemia and cardiovascular events, although this risk is modified by age. Little is known about how treatment of dyslipidemia and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol goal attainment differ between older and younger patients. We obtained clinical data from 9,926 dyslipidemic patients across 9 countries in North and Latin America, Europe, and Asia from 2006 through 2007. Multivariate regressions were performed to determine predictors of lipid level goal attainment. The study sample consisted of 5,733 adults <65 and 4,193 adults ≥65 years old. Compared with younger patients, older patients were more likely to have diabetes (32.5% vs 30.0%, p = 0.0014) and hypertension (73.4% vs 57.0%, p <0.0001), to be classified as high risk (68.6% vs 53.2%, p <0.0001), and to be taking a statin (79.1% vs 72.0%, p <0.0001). However, they were less likely to smoke (8.2% vs 17.6%, p <0.0001) or to have metabolic syndrome (29.0% vs 34.4%, p <0.0001). Older patients had lower LDL cholesterol levels (95.1 vs 103.9 mg/dl, p <0.0001) and higher levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (54.2 vs 51.5 mg/dl, p <0.0001). LDL cholesterol goal attainment was 74.7% in older and 71.1% in younger patients (p = 0.036). Older patients were more likely to achieve LDL targets whether low risk (89.8% vs 84.6%, p = 0.002), moderate risk (79.0% vs 71.9%, p = 0.0006), or high risk (70.5% vs 64.4%, p <0.0001). In conclusion, older patients had different risk profiles and better lipid levels compared with their younger counterparts. They were more likely to attain their LDL cholesterol goal, perhaps because of greater statin use, different risk profiles, or survival bias.

Adherence to statins, subsequent healthcare costs, and cardiovascular hospitalizations.

Statins are the primary agents used to decrease low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Although adherence to statins improves the clinical outcomes, the affect of statin adherence on healthcare costs has not been well studied. To examine the relation among statin adherence, subsequent hospitalizations, and healthcare costs, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of 381,422 patients, aged 18 to 61 years, using an integrated pharmacy and medical claims database. We measured adherence using the medication possession ratio (MPR) for 12 months and the healthcare costs and cardiovascular disease-related hospitalizations during the subsequent 18 months. Of those studied, 258,013 (67.6%) were adherent (MPR ≥80%), 65,795 (17.3%) had an MPR of 60% to 79%, and 57,614 (15.1%) had an MPR of <60%. The adjusted all-cause total healthcare costs were lowest in the adherent group at $10,198 ± $39.4 (mean ± SE) versus $10,609 ± $77.7 (p <0.001) for an MPR of 60% to 79%, and $11,102 ± $84.3 (p <0.001) for an MPR of <60%. The adherent group had greater statin costs at $838 ± $1.0 versus $664 ± $2.0 (p <0.001) and $488 ± $2.2 (p <0.001). When evaluated by 5 levels of MPR, 0% to 59% and increments of 10% >60%, the adjusted total healthcare costs were lowest for the MPR 90% to 100% group and significantly greater statistically (p <0.001) for each lower level of adherence. Compared to the statin-adherent patients, cardiovascular disease-related hospitalizations were more likely for the patients with an MPR of 60% to 79% (odds ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.16) and an MPR of 0% to 59% (odds ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.31). In conclusion, statin adherence is associated with reductions in subsequent total healthcare costs and cardiovascular disease-related hospitalizations.

Recognizing and improving health care disparities in the prevention of cardiovascular disease in women.

Innate differences in gender physiology result in unique exposures, risk, and protection that are specific to women. Recognition and appreciation of these differences results in better treatment adaptations for women and better outcomes. Disparities between genders in the treatment of major cardiovascular risk factors still exist and are mostly secondary to underestimating or misunderstanding a woman's risk. Preventive therapies are less often recommended to women. Women are more likely to be diagnosed and treated for hypertension, but are less likely to reach treatment goals. High-risk women-including diabetic women-are less likely to be on lipid-lowering agents and reach a low-density lipoprotein level less than 100 mg/dL. Diabetic women are less likely to achieve a hemoglobin A(1c) level less than 7%. Through understanding these disparities, health care providers will be better able to screen female patients and institute evidence-based therapies for the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Does a single-pill antihypertensive/lipid-lowering regimen improve adherence in US managed care enrolees? A non-randomized, observational, retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: A previous study in 4703 patients suggested that a single-pill combination of amlodipine and atorvastatin is associated with greater adherence to therapy than a two-pill calcium channel antagonist (calcium channel blocker [CCB]) and HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) regimen. However, the impact of prior medication use on the potential adherence benefits of single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To compare adherence to single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin versus two-pill CCB + statin regimens in a large managed care population, stratified according to prior CCB and statin use. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted among managed care enrolees in the US. Patients included in the analysis had to have a pharmacy claim for single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin or claims for both a CCB and a statin within any 30-day window between April 2004 and April 2005. Adherence was measured over 6 months following the index date (the date of the first single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin claim or of the claim for the second medication class for any two-pill CCB + statin regimen) as the proportion of days covered (PDC) by both CCB and statin therapy; patients were considered 'adherent' if PDC was > or =80%. Patients were divided into four cohorts based on pre-index CCB and statin use: (i) naive (CCB)/naive (statin); (ii) experienced (CCB)/naive (statin); (iii) naive (CCB)/experienced (statin); and (iv) experienced (CCB)/experienced (statin). Within each cohort, adherence was compared for patients receiving single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin versus two-pill amlodipine + atorvastatin or other two-pill CCB + statin regimens (including amlodipine or atorvastatin but not both) at index. Multivariable logistic regression with propensity score weighting was used to adjust for covariates, including age, sex and co-morbidities. RESULTS: In total, 35,430 patients were included in the analysis. At month 6 (after adjusting for covariates), patients in the experienced (CCB)/naive (statin) cohort receiving single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin were more than twice as likely to be adherent as those receiving two-pill amlodipine + atorvastatin (odds ratio [OR] 2.20; p < 0.0001) or other two-pill CCB + statin regimens (OR 2.75; p < 0.0001). Similarly, patients in the naive (CCB)/experienced (statin) cohort receiving single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin were more likely to be adherent than those receiving two-pill amlodipine + atorvastatin (OR 1.72; p < 0.0001) or other two-pill CCB + statin regimens (OR 2.81; p < 0.0001). In contrast, in the naive (CCB)/naive (statin) cohort there was no significant difference in adherence between patients receiving single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin versus two-pill amlodipine + atorvastatin (OR 1.00), although patients receiving single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin were slightly more likely to be adherent than those receiving other two-pill CCB + statin regimens (OR 1.29; p < 0.01). In the experienced (CCB)/experienced (statin) cohort there was also no significant difference between patients receiving single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin versus two-pill amlodipine + atorvastatin (OR 1.08), and only a slightly greater likelihood of achieving adherence to single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin versus other two-pill CCB + statin regimens (OR 1.19; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This large retrospective study confirms previous observations that single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin can help improve adherence versus two-pill CCB + statin regimens. However, greater improvements in adherence are likely to be observed in patients with prior experience of either CCB or statin therapy than in those either naive to, or experienced with, both therapies.

Evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular risk reduction: the safety and efficacy of high-dose statin therapy.

Current clinical guidelines for management of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) have evolved to reflect the findings of numerous randomized clinical trials and represent an important opportunity to effectively improve the cardiovascular (CV) risk profile of a wide range of patients. Implementation of guideline-recommended LDL-C management strategies facilitates the appropriate use of all available treatments, including lifestyle and dietary changes and pharmacotherapy. Where intensive lowering of LDL-C is required, suboptimal use of statins is a major contributor to the significant number of patients who remain at an unnecessarily increased risk of CV disease as a consequence of failing to reach their guideline-recommended LDL-C goals. This underuse may be explained by concerns over the safety and efficacy of high-dose statin regimens in certain populations. These issues are explored in the context of current, evidence-based clinical guidelines for LDL-C management and, through 3 hypothetical case studies, selection of appropriate starting doses of statins, and titration to a higher dose or switching to a more potent statin, to ensure that patients reach their individual LDL-C goals and reduce their overall CV risk, is also examined.

A large observational study of cardiovascular outcomes associated with atorvastatin or simvastatin therapy in diabetic patients without prior cardiovascular disease.

Analysis of claims data from 46,076 diabetic patients without cardiovascular disease initiating atorvastatin or simvastatin therapy suggested that, after adjusting for demographic and clinical confounders, use of atorvastatin was associated with fewer cardiovascular events versus simvastatin at doses of similar potency (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.97, P=0.01).

Cardiovascular outcomes among patients newly initiating atorvastatin or simvastatin therapy: a large database analysis of managed care plans in the United States.

BACKGROUND: While the results of randomized clinical trials have indicated that statins improve outcomes in patients without cardiovascular disease (CVD), it remains uncertain whether there are differences in efficacy between statins, particularly in clinical practice, where the public health implications could be substantial. OBJECTIVE: We assessed cardiovascular (CV) outcomes among primary-prevention patients newly initiating therapy with atorvastatin or simvastatin. METHODS: Using claims data from 92 US managed care plans, we identified new statin users without CVD who initiated atorvastatin (10 or 20 mg) or simvastatin (20 or 40 mg) from January 2003 to September 2005 and were continuously enrolled in a covered plan for > or = 12 months before and > or = 1 month after the initiation of statin therapy. The main outcome was the time to the first CV event (hospitalization related to myocardial infarction, angina, or coronary artery disease; stroke; amaurosis fugax; transient ischemic attack; peripheral or central nervous system vascular disease; or revascularization). Persistence with treatment was calculated in terms of the number of days during follow-up that a patient remained on statin treatment, starting from the date of the first prescription fill to the end of the study or the date at which therapy was discontinued. RESULTS: A total of 168,973 patients initiating atorvastatin (mean dose, 13.5 mg) and 50,658 patients initiating simvastatin (mean dose, 28.5 mg) were followed for a median of 1.5 years. Atorvastatin patients were significantly more persistent with treatment than simvastatin patients (median treatment duration, 158 vs 124 days, respectively; P < 0.001). After adjustment for age, sex, type of health plan, payer type, geographic region, calendar year of statin initiation, physician specialty, comorbidities, concomitant therapies, and total direct health care costs in the year before statin initiation, use of atorvastatin was associated with significantly fewer CV events compared with use of simvastatin (hazard ratio = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83-0.93; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In these patients without CVD, atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg was associated with a significantly lower risk of CV events compared with simvastatin 20 or 40 mg. Further studies are required to determine whether differences in persistence, achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, or other factors contribute to these differences in outcomes.

Regional variation in cardiac catheterization appropriateness and baseline risk after acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated whether appropriateness and baseline risk of cardiac catheterization varied according to regional intensity of invasive therapy after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and whether AMI mortality varied according to invasive intensity regions. BACKGROUND: Marked regional variations exist in cardiac invasive procedure use after AMI within the U.S. METHODS: We performed an analysis of 44,639 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized with AMI between 1998 and 2001. Invasive procedure intensity was determined based on overall cardiac catheterization rates for Medicare enrollees. Cardiac catheterization appropriateness was determined by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association classification and baseline risk was estimated using the GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) risk score. The primary outcomes of the study were cardiac catheterization use within 60 days and 3-year mortality after hospital admission. RESULTS: Higher invasive intensity regions were more likely to perform cardiac catheterizations on class I patients (appropriate) (RR 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27 to 1.48), class II patients (equivocal) (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.53), and class III patients (inappropriate) (RR 1.29, 95% 0.97 to 1.67) compared with low-intensity regions after adjusting for patient and physician characteristics. The overall cardiac catheterization use was 5.2% lower for each increase in GRACE risk decile, and this relationship was observed similarly in all regions. Risk-standardized mortality rates of AMI patients at 3 years were not substantially different between regions. CONCLUSIONS: Although higher-risk patients and those with more appropriate indications may have the most to benefit from an invasive strategy after AMI, we found that higher-invasive regions do not differentiate procedure selection based on the patients' appropriateness or their baseline risks.

Effect of statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and beta blockers on survival in patients >or=65 years of age with heart failure and preserved left ventricular systolic function.

About half of all patients with heart failure (HF) have preserved left ventricular systolic function. Statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and beta blockers have been shown to improve survival in patients with HF and low ejection fraction. However, no large national study has investigated these agents in patients with HF and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. We evaluated a nationwide sample of 13,533 eligible Medicare beneficiaries aged >or=65 years who were hospitalized with a primary discharge diagnosis of HF and had chart documentation of preserved left ventricular ejection fraction between April 1998 and March 1999 or between July 2000 and June 2001. In Cox proportional hazard model accounting for demographic profile, clinical characteristics, treatments, physician specialty, and hospital characteristics, discharge statin therapy was associated with significant improvements in 1- and 3-year mortality (RR 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61 to 0.78; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.79, respectively). Irrespective of total cholesterol level or coronary artery disease status, diabetes, hypertension, and age, statin therapy was associated with significant differences in mortality rates. Similarly, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were associated with better survival at 1 year (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95) and 3 years (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98). Beta-blocker therapy was associated with a nonsignificant trend at 1 year (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.10) and significant survival benefits at 3 years (RR 0.92%, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97). In conclusion, our data demonstrate that statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and beta blockers are associated with better short- and long-term survival in patients >or=65 years with HF and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.