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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A scoping review of direct oral anticoagulant ambulatory management practices.

Models of care for managing direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy are evolving. Little is known of what services are provided by anticoagulation managements services (AMS) for DOACs, or what necessitates comprehensive DOAC management and what differentiates it from usual care. The purpose of this scoping review was to describe services, management, or monitoring of DOACs distinct from prescriber-managed or usual care of DOACs. This scoping review reported followed the 2018 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE from inception to November 2020 to identify articles of interest. No language restriction was applied. Articles were included if they provided a description of DOAC management services, and described longitudinal anticoagulation follow-up that occurred in ambulatory care, community, or outpatient-related settings. Data was extracted from a total of 23 articles. The specific types of DOAC management interventions provided varied across the included studies. Nearly all studies described some form of DOAC therapy appropriateness assessment. Other common interventions included assessments of DOAC therapy compliance, adverse event triage and management, assessment of DOAC dosing appropriateness, periprocedural management of DOAC therapy, educational interventions, and renal function monitoring. A variety of DOAC management interventions were identified, but additional studies are needed to help health systems decide whether specific interventions performed by dedicated services are preferred over the usual care provided by clinicians prescribing DOAC therapy.

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.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Masked Hypertension Screening and Treatment in US Adults With Suspected Masked Hypertension: A Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Recent US blood pressure (BP) guidelines recommend using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring (HBPM) to screen adults for masked hypertension. However, limited evidence exists of the expected long-term effects of screening for and treating masked hypertension. METHODS: We estimated the lifetime health and economic outcomes of screening for and treating masked hypertension using the Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Policy Model, a validated microsimulation model. We simulated a cohort of 100,000 US adults aged ≥20 years with suspected masked hypertension (i.e., office BP 120-129/<80 mm Hg, not taking antihypertensive medications, without CVD history). We compared usual care only (i.e., no screening), usual care plus ABPM, and usual care plus HBPM. We projected total direct healthcare costs (2021 USD), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Future costs and QALYs were discounted 3% annually. Secondary outcomes included CVD events and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Relative to usual care, adding masked hypertension screening and treatment with ABPM and HBPM was projected to prevent 14.3 and 20.5 CVD events per 100,000 person-years, increase the proportion experiencing any treatment-related serious adverse events by 2.7 and 5.1 percentage points, and increase mean total costs by $1,076 and $1,046, respectively. Compared with usual care, adding ABPM was estimated to cost $85,164/QALY gained. HBPM resulted in lower QALYs than usual care due to increased treatment-related adverse events and pill-taking disutility. CONCLUSIONS: The results from our simulation study suggest screening with ABPM and treating masked hypertension is cost-effective in US adults with suspected masked hypertension.

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.

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.

Predicting Out-of-Office Blood Pressure in a Diverse US Population.

BACKGROUND: The PRedicting Out-of-OFfice Blood Pressure (PROOF-BP) algorithm accurately predicted out-of-office blood pressure (BP) among adults with suspected high BP in the United Kingdom and Canada. We tested the accuracy of PROOF-BP in a diverse US population and evaluated a newly developed US-specific algorithm (PROOF-BP-US). METHODS: Adults with ≥2 office BP readings and ≥10 awake BP readings on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring from 4 pooled US studies were included. We compared mean awake BP with predicted out-of-office BP using PROOF-BP and PROOF-BP-US. Our primary outcomes were hypertensive out-of-office systolic BP (SBP) ≥130 mm Hg and diastolic BP (DBP) ≥80 mm Hg. RESULTS: We included 3,058 adults, mean (SD) age was 52.0 (11.9) years, 38% were male, and 54% were Black. The area under the receiver-operator characteristic (AUROC) curve (95% confidence interval) for hypertensive out-of-office SBP was 0.81 (0.79-0.82) and DBP was 0.76 (0.74-0.78) for PROOF-BP. For PROOF-BP-US, the AUROC curve for hypertensive out-of-office SBP was 0.82 (0.81-0.83) and for DBP was 0.81 (0.79-0.83). The optimal predicted out-of-office BP ranges for out-of-office BP measurement referral were 120-134/75-84 mm Hg for PROOF-BP and 125-134/75-84 mm Hg for PROOF-BP-US. The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association BP guideline (referral range 130-159/80-99 mm Hg) would refer 93.1% of adults not taking antihypertensive medications with office BP ≥130/80 mm Hg in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for out-of-office BP measurement, compared with 53.1% using PROOF-BP and 46.8% using PROOF-BP-US. CONCLUSIONS: PROOF-BP and PROOF-BP-US accurately predicted out-of-office hypertension in a diverse sample of US adults.

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.

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.

Multiple Social Vulnerabilities to Health Disparities and Hypertension and Death in the REGARDS Study.

Social vulnerabilities increase the risk of developing hypertension and lower life expectancy, but the effect of an individual's overall vulnerability burden is unknown. Our objective was to determine the association of social vulnerability count and the risk of developing hypertension or dying over 10 years and whether these associations vary by race. We used the REGARDS study (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke) and included participants without baseline hypertension. The primary exposure was the count of social vulnerabilities defined across economic, education, health and health care, neighborhood and built environment, and social and community context domains. Among 5425 participants of mean age 64±10 SD years of which 24% were Black participants, 1468 (31%) had 1 vulnerability and 717 (15%) had ≥2 vulnerabilities. Compared with participants without vulnerabilities, the adjusted relative risk ratio for developing hypertension was 1.16 (95% CI, 0.99-1.36) and 1.49 (95% CI, 1.20-1.85) for individuals with 1 and ≥2 vulnerabilities, respectively. The adjusted relative risk ratio for death was 1.55 (95% CI, 1.24-1.93) and 2.30 (95% CI, 1.75-3.04) for individuals with 1 and ≥2 vulnerabilities, respectively. A greater proportion of Black participants developed hypertension and died than did White participants (hypertension, 38% versus 31%; death, 25% versus 20%). The vulnerability count association was strongest in White participants (P value for vulnerability count×race interaction: hypertension=0.046, death=0.015). Overall, a greater number of socially determined vulnerabilities was associated with progressively higher risk of developing hypertension, and an even higher risk of dying over 10 years.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Initiation Among Veterans Who Are Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitor Naïve With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Background Sacubitril/valsartan, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, received US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2015 for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Our objective was to describe the sacubitril/valsartan initiation rate, associated characteristics, and 6-month follow-up dosing among veterans with HFrEF who are renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi) naïve. Methods and Results Retrospective cohort study of veterans with HFrEF who are RAASi naïve defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%; ≥1 in/outpatient heart failure visit, first RAASi (sacubitril/valsartan, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor [ACEI]), or angiotensin-II receptor blocker [ARB]) fill from July 2015 to June 2019. Characteristics associated with sacubitril/valsartan initiation were identified using Poisson regression models. From July 2015 to June 2019, we identified 3458 sacubitril/valsartan and 29 367 ACEI or ARB initiators among veterans with HFrEF who are RAASi naïve. Sacubitril/valsartan initiation increased from 0% to 26.5%. Sacubitril/valsartan (versus ACEI or ARB) initiators were less likely to have histories of stroke, myocardial infarction, or hypertension and more likely to be older and have diabetes mellitus and lower LVEF. At 6-month follow-up, the prevalence of ≥50% target daily dose for sacubitril/valsartan, ACEI, and ARB initiators was 23.5%, 43.2%, and 47.1%, respectively. Conclusions Sacubitril/valsartan initiation for HFrEF in the Veterans Administration increased in the 4 years immediately following Food and Drug Administration approval. Sacubitril/valsartan (versus ACEI or ARB) initiators had fewer baseline cardiovascular comorbidities and the lowest proportion on ≥50% target daily dose at 6-month follow-up. Identifying the reasons for lower follow-up dosing of sacubitril/valsartan could support guideline recommendations and quality improvement strategies for patients with HFrEF.