Utilization of High-Intensity Statins in Patients at Risk for Cardiovascular Events: A National Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines, which identified four groups of patients at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events, departed from the target-based approach to managing cholesterol. The impact of these guidelines on high-intensity statin use across the United States is unclear. STUDY QUESTION: The primary objective was to evaluate the rate of high-intensity potential (HIP) statin use before and after the 2013 guidelines. The secondary objective was to identify predictors of HIP statin use within the study population. STUDY DESIGN: A national cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Office visits involving patients aged 21-75 years where criteria for HIP statin therapy were met were included. Visits involving pregnant patients were excluded. MEASURES AND OUTCOMES: Prescribing trends of HIP statins were measured from National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data before and after the 2013 guidelines. Multivariate logistic regression identified variables associated with prescribing HIP statins. RESULTS: A total of 48,884 visits were included, representing more than 940 million office visits nationally. HIP statins were listed in 9.5% and 16.5% of visits before and after 2013, respectively (odds ratio [OR] 1.88; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.62-2.20). The strongest predictors of HIP statin use were antihypertensive use (OR 5.38, 95% CI 4.67-6.20), comorbid hyperlipidemia (OR 2.93, 95% CI 2.62-3.29), Black race (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.81), and Hispanic ethnicity (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52-0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing rates for HIP statins increased after the release of the 2013 guidelines. The prescribing rates were lower than expected, especially in Black and Hispanic patients. These observations signify opportunities to improve the quality of care for patients who are at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events in the United States.

Consensus Clinical Decision-Making Factors Driving Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation.

Guideline-recommended anticoagulation is frequently omitted in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) for reasons not fully understood, which may result in suboptimal care. A nationally representative, expert group of physicians (cardiology, neurology, and general medicine), and clinical pharmacists participated in a consensus-seeking, modified Delphi method to identify key clinical decision-making factors driving anticoagulant prescribing in real-world AF patients. Representing >2,500 anticoagulation-related patient encounters per month, 27 of 30 participants completed the study (90% overall response rate). In Round-1, experts rated their level of agreement with factors and suggested modifications or additional factors. Of 66 factors entering Round-1, 21 met and 4 partially met consensus, 41 did not meet consensus, and 7 were newly suggested. Of 32 factors advanced for scoring in Round-2, 16 met consensus criteria. In Round-3, experts were given the option to rescue up to 2 of the 16 nonconsensus factors from Round-2. Including a concomitant need for dual antiplatelet therapy, no factor was successfully rescued into consensus. The most important factors related to risk of infarction rather than bleeding risk or other patient-specific considerations. Among factors not independently addressed in current guidelines, these included baseline hematologic indicators of potential bleeding risk, previous bleeding episodes by specific type, other risk factors for bleeding, and adherence. In conclusion, when determining anticoagulation strategies in AF, there is a need for further research on the clinical implications of these emerging factors as well as the reasons behind divergent opinions toward nonconsensus factors.

Patient Awareness and Expectations of Pharmacist Services During Hospital Stay.

BACKGROUND: There are insufficient data in the United States regarding patient awareness and expectations of hospital pharmacist availability and services. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to assess patient awareness and expectations of hospital pharmacist services and to determine whether a marketing campaign for pharmacist services increases patient awareness and expectations. METHODS: Eligible inpatients were surveyed before and after implementation of a hospital-wide pharmacist services marketing campaign (12 items; Likert scale of 1 [strongly disagree] to 4 [strongly agree]; maximum total score of 48) regarding awareness of pharmacist services. The primary outcome was the change in median total survey scores from baseline. Other outcomes included the frequency of patient requests for pharmacists. RESULTS: Similar numbers of patients completed the survey before and after the campaign (intervention, n = 140, vs control, n = 147). Awareness of pharmacist availability and services was increased (41 [interquartile ranges, IQRs: 36-46] vs 37 [IQR 31-43]; P < .001). Patients were 7 times more likely to request a pharmacist following the marketing campaign implementation. CONCLUSION: Awareness among inpatients of pharmacist services is low. Marketing pharmacist availability and services to patients in the hospital improves awareness and expectations for pharmacist-provided care and increases the frequency of patient-initiated interaction between pharmacists and patients. This could improve patient outcomes as pharmacists become more integrally involved in direct patient care.