Lipoprotein(a) and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients With or Without Baseline Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, whether the optimal Lp(a) threshold for risk assessment should differ based on baseline ASCVD status is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the association between Lp(a) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among patients with and without baseline ASCVD. METHODS: We studied a retrospective cohort of patients with Lp(a) measured at 2 medical centers in Boston, Massachusetts, from 2000 to 2019. To assess the association of Lp(a) with incident MACE (nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or cardiovascular mortality), Lp(a) percentile groups were generated with the reference group set at the first to 50th Lp(a) percentiles. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to assess the association of Lp(a) percentile group with MACE. RESULTS: Overall, 16,419 individuals were analyzed with a median follow-up of 11.9 years. Among the 10,181 (62%) patients with baseline ASCVD, individuals in the 71st to 90th percentile group had a 21% increased hazard of MACE (adjusted HR: 1.21; P < 0.001), which was similar to that of individuals in the 91st to 100th group (adjusted HR: 1.26; P < 0.001). Among the 6,238 individuals without established ASCVD, there was a continuously higher hazard of MACE with increasing Lp(a), and individuals in the 91st to 100th Lp(a) percentile group had the highest relative risk with an adjusted HR of 1.93 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a large, contemporary U.S. cohort, elevated Lp(a) is independently associated with long-term MACE among individuals with and without baseline ASCVD. Our results suggest that the threshold for risk assessment may be different in primary vs secondary prevention cohorts.

Staging and clean room: Constructs designed to facilitate transparency and reduce bias in comparative analyses of real-world data.

PURPOSE: We describe constructs designed to protect the integrity of the results from comparative analyses using real-world data (RWD): staging and clean room. METHODS: Staging involves performing sequential preliminary analyses and evaluating the population size available and potential bias before conducting comparative analyses. A clean room involves restricted access to data and preliminary results, policies governing exploratory analyses and protocol deviations, and audit trail. These constructs are intended to allow decisions about protocol deviations, such as changes to design or model specification, to be made without knowledge of how they might affect subsequent analyses. We describe an example for implementing staging with a clean room. RESULTS: Stage 1 may involve selecting a data source, developing and registering a protocol, establishing a clean room, and applying inclusion/exclusion criteria. Stage 2 may involve attempting to achieve covariate balance, often through propensity score models. Stage 3 may involve evaluating the presence of residual confounding using negative control outcomes. After each stage, check points may be implemented when a team of statisticians, epidemiologists and clinicians masked to how their decisions may affect study outcomes, reviews the results. This review team may be tasked with making recommendations for protocol deviations to address study precision or bias. They may recommend proceeding to the next stage, conducting additional analyses to address bias, or terminating the study. Stage 4 may involve conducting the comparative analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The staging and clean room constructs are intended to protect the integrity and enhance confidence in the results of analyses of RWD.

Ancestral diversity in lipoprotein(a) studies helps address evidence gaps.

INTRODUCTION: The independent and causal cardiovascular disease risk factor lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is elevated in >1.5 billion individuals worldwide, but studies have prioritised European populations. METHODS: Here, we examined how ancestrally diverse studies could clarify Lp(a)'s genetic architecture, inform efforts examining application of Lp(a) polygenic risk scores (PRS), enable causal inference and identify unexpected Lp(a) phenotypic effects using data from African (n=25 208), East Asian (n=2895), European (n=362 558), South Asian (n=8192) and Hispanic/Latino (n=8946) populations. RESULTS: Fourteen genome-wide significant loci with numerous population specific signals of large effect were identified that enabled construction of Lp(a) PRS of moderate (R2=15% in East Asians) to high (R2=50% in Europeans) accuracy. For all populations, PRS showed promise as a 'rule out' for elevated Lp(a) because certainty of assignment to the low-risk threshold was high (88.0%-99.9%) across PRS thresholds (80th-99th percentile). Causal effects of increased Lp(a) with increased glycated haemoglobin were estimated for Europeans (p value =1.4×10-6), although inverse effects in Africans and East Asians suggested the potential for heterogeneous causal effects. Finally, Hispanic/Latinos were the only population in which known associations with coronary atherosclerosis and ischaemic heart disease were identified in external testing of Lp(a) PRS phenotypic effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our results emphasise the merits of prioritising ancestral diversity when addressing Lp(a) evidence gaps.

Cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease and elevated lipoprotein(a): implications for the OCEAN(a)-outcomes trial population.

Aims: The ongoing Olpasiran Trials of Cardiovascular Events and Lipoprotein(a) Reduction [OCEAN(a)]-Outcomes trial is evaluating whether Lp(a) lowering can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events among patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and elevated Lp(a) (≥200 nmol/L). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the association of elevated Lp(a) with cardiovascular outcomes in an observational cohort resembling the OCEAN(a)-Outcomes trial main enrolment criteria. Methods and results: This study included patients aged 18-85 years with Lp(a) measured as part of their clinical care between 2000 and 2019. While patients were required to have a history of MI, or PCI, those with severe kidney dysfunction or a malignant neoplasm were excluded. Elevated Lp(a) was defined as ≥200 nmol/L consistent with the OCEAN(a)-Outcomes trial. The primary outcome was a composite of coronary heart disease death, MI, or coronary revascularization. Natural language processing algorithms, billing and ICD codes, and laboratory data were employed to identify outcomes and covariates. A total of 3142 patients met the eligibility criteria, the median age was 61 (IQR: 52-73) years, 28.6% were women, and 12.3% had elevated Lp(a). Over a median follow-up of 12.2 years (IQR: 6.2-14.3), the primary composite outcome occurred more frequently in patients with versus without elevated Lp(a) [46.0 vs. 38.0%, unadjHR = 1.30 (95% CI: 1.09-1.53), P = 0.003]. Following adjustment for measured confounders, elevated Lp(a) remained independently associated with the primary outcome [adjHR = 1.33 (95% CI: 1.12-1.58), P = 0.001]. Conclusion: In an observational cohort resembling the main OCEAN(a)-Outcomes Trial enrolment criteria, patients with an Lp(a) ≥200 nmol/L had a higher risk of cardiovascular outcomes.

Lipoprotein(a) and the Risk for Recurrent Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Events Among Adults With CKD: The Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study.

Rationale & Objective: Many adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) have high lipoprotein(a) levels. It is unclear whether high lipoprotein(a) levels confer an increased risk for recurrent ASCVD events in this population. We estimated the risk for recurrent ASCVD events associated with lipoprotein(a) in adults with CKD and prevalent ASCVD. Study Design: Observational cohort study. Setting & Participants: We included 1,439 adults with CKD and prevalent ASCVD not on dialysis enrolled in the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort study between 2003 and 2008. Exposure: Baseline lipoprotein(a) mass concentration, measured using a latex-enhanced immunoturbidimetric assay. Outcomes: Recurrent ASCVD events (primary outcome), kidney failure, and death (exploratory outcomes) through 2019. Analytical Approach: We used Cox proportional-hazards regression models to estimate adjusted HR (aHRs) and 95% CIs. Results: Among participants included in the current analysis (mean age 61.6 years, median lipoprotein(a) 29.4 mg/dL [25th-75th percentiles 9.9-70.9 mg/dL]), 641 had a recurrent ASCVD event, 510 developed kidney failure, and 845 died over a median follow-up of 6.6 years. The aHR for ASCVD events associated with 1 standard deviation (SD) higher log-transformed lipoprotein(a) was 1.04 (95% CI, 0.95-1.15). In subgroup analyses, 1 SD higher log-lipoprotein(a) was associated with an increased risk for ASCVD events in participants without diabetes (aHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02-1.48), but there was no evidence of an association among those with diabetes (aHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88-1.10, P comparing aHRs = 0.031). The aHR associated with 1 SD higher log-lipoprotein(a) in the overall study population was 1.16 (95% CI, 1.04-1.28) for kidney failure and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.94-1.11) for death. Limitations: Lipoprotein(a) was not available in molar concentration. Conclusions: Lipoprotein(a) was not associated with the risk for recurrent ASCVD events in adults with CKD, although it was associated with a risk for kidney failure.

Incident CHD and ischemic stroke associated with lipoprotein(a) by levels of Factor VIII and inflammation.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation and coagulation may contribute to the increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) associated with high lipoprotein(a). The association of lipoprotein(a) with ASCVD is stronger in individuals with high versus low high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), a marker of inflammation. OBJECTIVES: Determine the association of lipoprotein(a) with incident ASCVD by levels of coagulation Factor VIII controlling for hs-CRP. METHODS: We analyzed data from 6,495 men and women 45 to 84 years of age in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) without prevalent ASCVD at baseline (2000-2002). Lipoprotein(a) mass concentration, Factor VIII coagulant activity, and hs-CRP were measured at baseline and categorized as high or low (≥75th or <75th percentile of the distribution). Participants were followed for incident coronary heart disease (CHD) and ischemic stroke through 2015. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 13.9 years, there were 390 CHD and 247 ischemic stroke events. The hazard ratio (95%CI) for CHD associated with high lipoprotein(a) (≥40.1 versus <40.1 mg/dL) including adjustment for hs-CRP among participants with low and high Factor VIII was 1.07 (0.80-1.44) and 2.00 (1.33-3.01), respectively (p-value for interaction 0.016). The hazard ratio (95%CI) for CHD associated with high lipoprotein(a) including adjustment for Factor VIII was 1.16 (0.87-1.54) and 2.00 (1.29-3.09) among participants with low and high hs-CRP, respectively (p-value for interaction 0.042). Lp(a) was not associated with ischemic stroke regardless of Factor VIII or hs-CRP levels. CONCLUSION: High lipoprotein(a) is a risk factor for CHD in adults with high levels of hemostatic or inflammatory markers.

Heterogeneity of Lipoprotein(a) Levels Among Hispanic or Latino Individuals Residing in the US.

Importance: Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a genetically determined risk-enhancing factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The Lp(a) distribution among the diverse Hispanic or Latino community residing in the US has not been previously described, to the authors' knowledge. Objective: To determine the distribution of Lp(a) levels across a large cohort of diverse Hispanic or Latino adults living in the US and by key demographic groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) is a prospective, population-based, cohort study of diverse Hispanic or Latino adults living in the US. At screening, participants aged 18 to 74 years were recruited between 2008 and 2011 from 4 US metropolitan areas (Bronx, New York; Chicago, Illinois; Miami, Florida; San Diego, California). HCHS/SOL included 16 415 noninstitutionalized adults recruited through probability sampling of randomly selected households. The study population represents Hispanic or Latino participants from diverse self-identified geographic and cultural backgrounds: Central American, Cuban, Dominican, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and South American. This study evaluated a subset of HCHS/SOL participants who underwent Lp(a) measurement. Sampling weights and surveys methods were used to account for HCHS/SOL sampling design. Data for this study were analyzed from April 2021 to April 2023. Exposure: Lp(a) molar concentration was measured by a particle-enhanced turbidimetric assay with minimized sensitivity to apolipoprotein(a) size variation. Main Outcome and Measure: Lp(a) quintiles were compared using analysis of variance among key demographic groups, including self-identified Hispanic or Latino background. Median percentage genetic ancestry (Amerindian, European, West African) were compared across Lp(a) quintiles. Results: Lp(a) molar concentration was measured in 16 117 participants (mean [SD] age, 41 [14.8] years; 9680 female [52%]; 1704 Central American [7.7%], 2313 Cuban [21.1%], 1436 Dominican [10.3%], 6395 Mexican [39.1%], 2652 Puerto Rican [16.6%], 1051 South American [5.1%]). Median (IQR) Lp(a) level was 19.7 (7.4-59.7) nmol/L. Across Hispanic or Latino background groups, there was significant heterogeneity in median Lp(a) levels ranging from 12 to 41 nmol/L in those reporting a Mexican vs Dominican background. Median (IQR) West African genetic ancestry was lowest in the first quintile of Lp(a) level and highest in the fifth quintile (5.5% [3.4%-12.9%] and 12.1% [5.0%-32.5%]; respectively; P < .001), whereas the converse was seen for Amerindian ancestry (32.8% [9.9%-53.2%] and 10.7% [4.9%-30.7%], respectively; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that differences in Lp(a) level distribution across the diverse US Hispanic or Latino population may carry important implications for the use of Lp(a) level in ASCVD risk assessment for this group. Cardiovascular outcomes data are needed to better understand the clinical impact of differences in Lp(a) levels by Hispanic or Latino background.

Contemporary patterns of lipoprotein(a) testing and associated clinical care and outcomes.

Objective: Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, yet little is known about Lp(a) testing patterns in real-world practice. The objective of this analysis was to determine how Lp(a) testing is used in clinical practice in comparison with low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) testing alone, and to determine whether elevated Lp(a) level is associated with subsequent initiation of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) and incident cardiovascular (CV) events. Methods: This is an observational cohort study, based on lab tests administered between Jan 1, 2015 and Dec 31, 2019. We used electronic health record (EHR) data from 11 United States health systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet). We created two cohorts for comparison: 1) the Lp(a) cohort, of adults with an Lp(a) test and 2) the LDL-C cohort, of 4:1 date- and site-matched adults with an LDL-C test, but no Lp(a) test. The primary exposure was the presence of an Lp(a) or LDL-C test result. In the Lp(a) cohort, we used logistic regression to assess the relationship between Lp(a) results in mass units (< 50, 50-100, and > 100mg/dL) and molar units (<125, 125-250, > 250nmol/L) and initiation of LLT within 3 months. We used multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression to evaluate these Lp(a) levels and time to composite CV hospitalization, including hospitalization for myocardial infarction, revascularization and ischemic stroke. Results: Overall, 20,551 patients had Lp(a) test results and 2,584,773 patients had LDL-C test results (82,204 included in the matched LDL-C cohort). Compared with the LDL-C cohort, the Lp(a) cohort more frequently had prevalent ASCVD (24.3% vs. 8.5%) and multiple prior CV events (8.6% vs. 2.6%). Elevated Lp(a) was associated with greater odds of subsequent LLT initiation. Elevated Lp(a) reported in mass units was also associated with subsequent composite CV hospitalization [aHR (95% CI): Lp(a) 50-100mg/dL 1.25 (1.02-1.53), p<0.03, Lp(a) > 100mg/dL 1.23 (1.08-1.40), p<0.01]. Conclusion: Lp(a) testing is relatively infrequent in health systems across the U.S. As new therapies for Lp(a) emerge, improved patient and provider education is needed to increase awareness of the utility of this risk marker.

Lipoprotein(a) and the Risk for Coronary Heart Disease and Ischemic Stroke Events Among Black and White Adults With Cardiovascular Disease.

Background It is unclear whether lipoprotein(a) is associated with coronary heart disease (CHD) and ischemic stroke events in White and Black adults with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Methods and Results We conducted a case-cohort analysis, including Black and White REGARDS (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke) study participants ≥45 years of age with prevalent ASCVD (ie, CHD or stroke) at baseline between 2003 and 2007. Baseline lipoprotein(a) molar concentration was measured in participants with ASCVD who experienced a CHD event by December 2017 (n=1166) or an ischemic stroke by September 2019 (n=492) and in a random subcohort of participants with prevalent ASCVD (n=1948). The hazard ratio (HR) for CHD events per 1 SD (1.5 units) higher log-transformed lipoprotein(a) was 1.26 (95% CI, 1.02-1.56) among Black participants and 1.16 (95% CI, 1.02-1.31) among White participants (P value comparing HRs, 0.485). The HR for CHD events per 1 SD higher log-lipoprotein(a) within subgroups with hs-CRP (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein) ≥2 and <2 mg/L was 1.31 (95% CI, 0.99-1.73) and 1.23 (95% CI, 0.85-1.80), respectively (P value comparing HRs, 0.836), among Black participants, and 1.07 (95% CI, 0.91-1.27) and 1.36 (95% CI, 1.10-1.70), respectively (P value comparing HRs, 0.088), among White participants. There was no evidence that the association between lipoprotein(a) and CHD events differed by statin use. There was no evidence of an association between lipoprotein(a) and ischemic stroke events among Black or White participants. Conclusions Higher lipoprotein(a) levels were associated with an increased risk for CHD events in Black and White adults with ASCVD.

Cost and Utilization Impacts of a Medicaid Managed Care Organization's Behavioral Health Wraparound Program.

Wraparound programs that provide comprehensive evidence-based outpatient treatment, transportation, social services, and housing supports have shown promise for improving clinical behavioral health-related outcomes to reduce the need for institutionalized care; however, the majority of evidence is based on wraparound programs for children. This study examined the impact of a wraparound program for adult Medicaid managed care organization members with serious mental health or substance use disorders on health care costs and utilization. This retrospective observational study used 2013-2018 claims data collected from a large Medicaid managed care organization operating in multiple states. We used an intention-to-treat difference-in-difference study design to examine the association of the wraparound with costs and utilization. Adult Medicaid members with an emergency department (ED) or inpatient visit for a behavioral health condition (index visit) were eligible for the study. Outcomes included all-cause and behavioral health-related costs and utilization during follow-up after the index visit's admission date. Outcomes were calculated overall, as well as separately by inpatient, ED, and outpatient/wraparound settings. We found that during the first post-admission month, the wraparound program was associated with 27.6 percentage points (PP) and 27.2 PP reductions in the number of behavioral health-related inpatient nights and costs, respectively. However, during subsequent months (median follow-up ranging from 7 to 10 months) there were no associations with per-member-per-month total all-cause or behavioral health-related costs. Nonetheless, the wraparound program was associated with 12.3 PP reduction in all-cause cost during the entire study period among a subset of members who were high cost at the baseline. Reduced hospital utilization and costs during the first month of wraparound services were fully counteracted by outpatient, housing, and other wraparound services costs during the following months. This indicates the importance of proper payment arrangements with value-based contracting or performance targets with wraparound services providers to align the objective of reducing inpatient use. Future wraparound programs may consider a more focused recruitment from high-cost members with complex care needs. However, our estimates were conservative given that it's from a single Medicaid managed care organization's perspective and some benefit from investing in addressing social needs may be realized in longer term (beyond our study period). States' Medicaid programs may consider the longer-term cost and broader, societal benefit of wraparound investment.

Lipoprotein(a) Testing Patterns in a Large Health System.

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is associated with increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). As directed therapy for Lp(a) emerges, it is important to understand patterns of Lp(a) testing in routine clinical practice. We set out to characterize Lp(a) testing across a large academic health system. Using electronic health record (EHR) data from 2014 to 2019, we compared patients who underwent Lp(a) testing to date-matched peers who had low density lipoprotein (LDL-C) assessment alone. We analyzed ordering provider characteristics and rates of initiation of new lipid lowering therapy (LLT) within 12 months after testing. Of 1,296 adults with Lp(a) test results, 629 (48.5%) had prior history of ASCVD and 667 (51.4%) did not. Compared with those with LDL-C testing alone, individuals who underwent Lp(a) testing were more like to have a myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke at a young age and multiple prior cardiovascular events. Though the majority of Lp(a) tests were ordered in outpatient encounters, a higher proportion of Lp(a) tests compared with LDL-C tests were performed in the inpatient setting. Neurology and psychiatry were the most common specialty to order Lp(a) tests in our cohort. There was a significantly increased initiation of LLT after Lp(a) testing compared with LDL-C testing across all medication types. Consistent with guidelines, Lp(a) testing is used in those with early onset ASCVD, and among those with multiple cardiovascular events. Lp(a) testing is associated with more aggressive LLT in following year. Further research is needed to characterize Lp(a) testing across larger populations.

Antihypertensive Medication Nonpersistence and Low Adherence for Adults <65 Years Initiating Treatment in 2007-2014.

Previous evidence suggests modest improvements in antihypertensive medication adherence occurred from 2007 to 2012 among US adults ≥65 years of age. Whether adherence improved over time among adults <65 years of age is unknown. We assessed trends in antihypertensive medication nonpersistence and low adherence among 379 658 commercially insured adults <65 years of age initiating treatment in 2007-2014 using MarketScan claims. Nonpersistence was defined as having no days of medication available to take during the final 90 days of the 365 days following initiation. Among beneficiaries who were persistent to treatment, low adherence was defined by having antihypertensive medication available to take for <80% of the days in the 365 days following initiation (ie, proportion of days covered <80%). In 2007 and 2014, 23.3% and 23.5% of patients were nonpersistent to treatment, respectively, and 42.3% and 40.2% had low adherence, respectively. The relative risks for nonpersistence and low adherence were lower among beneficiaries initiating treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (0.95; 95% CI, 0.94-0.97 and 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.98, respectively), angiotensin receptor blocker (0.86; 95% CI, 0.85-0.88 and 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.00, respectively), or multiclass regimen (0.82; 95% CI, 0.80-0.84 and 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.89, respectively), prescribed 90-day versus 30-day prescriptions (0.67; 95% CI, 0.66-0.68 and 0.70; 95% CI, 0.69-0.71, respectively), or who received medications by mail versus at the pharmacy (0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.95 and 0.90; 95% CI, 0.88-0.92, respectively). In conclusion, several modifiable factors were associated with lower rates of both antihypertensive medication nonpersistence and low adherence among adults <65 years of age initiating treatment in 2007-2014.

Healthcare resource use and costs associated with chronic kidney disease in US private insurance patients with multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVES: Within a median 1.2 years after patients have an initial diagnosis with multiple myeloma, up to 61% were diagnosed with renal impairment and 50% were diagnosed with chronic kidney disease. This study estimated economic burden associated with chronic kidney disease in multiple myeloma patients in the US. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients ≥18 years old with ≥1 inpatient or ≥ 2 outpatient multiple myeloma diagnoses between 1 January 2008 and 31 March 2015 were identified from MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases. Chronic kidney disease patients had ≥1 diagnosis of chronic kidney disease Stages 1-5 (first chronic kidney disease diagnosis date = index date) on or after the first multiple myeloma diagnosis, and were propensity score matched 1:1 to multiple myeloma patients without chronic kidney disease, end-stage renal disease, dialysis, or other type of chronically impaired renal function. All patients had ≥six-month continuous enrollment prior to index date and were followed for ≥one month from index date until the earliest of inpatient death, end of continuous enrollment, or end of the study period (30 September 2015). The per-patient per-year healthcare resource utilization and costs were measured during follow-up. Costs were total reimbursed amount in 2016 US dollars. RESULTS: A total of 2541 multiple myeloma patients with chronic kidney disease stages 1-5 and 2541 matched controls met the study criteria and were respectively 69.3 and 69.6 years, 54.5% and 55.3% men, and had 572.2 and 533.4 mean days of follow up. Compared to controls, chronic kidney disease patients had significantly (all P < 0.001) higher proportions (57.1% vs. 32.1%) and frequency (1.2 vs. 0.5) of inpatient admissions, frequency of emergency room visits (5.1 vs. 3.3), and total costs ($106,634 vs. $71,880). Sensitivity analyses found that patients with chronic kidney disease, end-stage renal disease, or dialysis had $78,455 ( P < 0.001) higher costs (per-patient per-year) than matched controls. CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden associated with chronic kidney disease in patients with multiple myeloma was estimated to be between $34,754 and $78,455 per-patient per-year. Given its substantial clinical and economic impact, preservation of renal function is important in multiple myeloma patient care.

Is Rheumatoid Arthritis a Cardiovascular Risk-Equivalent to Diabetes Mellitus?

OBJECTIVE: The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol treatment guidelines recommend statins for patients with diabetes mellitus ages 40-75 years due to their elevated cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. We compared the incidence of hospitalized acute myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and coronary revascularization according to whether patients had diabetes mellitus, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), both, or neither. METHODS: Using 2006-2010 private and public health plan claims, we identified 4 mutually exclusive retrospective cohorts ages >40 years: patients with RA and diabetes mellitus, RA only, diabetes mellitus only, or neither condition. Patients with prevalent CVD were excluded. Outcomes included acute MI and stroke, identified from inpatient discharge diagnosis codes, and coronary revascularization from procedure codes. Across the 4 cohorts, we calculated incidence rates (IRs) of the outcomes, standardized to the 2010 US census age and sex distribution. RESULTS: We identified 920,772 eligible participants. The age- and sex-standardized IRs (per 1,000 person-years) for MI were highest among patients with RA and diabetes mellitus (IR 12.6 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 10.7-14.7]), followed by patients with diabetes mellitus only (IR 10.7 [95% CI 10.3-11.0]), RA only (IR 5.7 [95% CI 5.2-6.3]), and with neither condition (IR 4.2 [95% CI 4.1-4.3]). CONCLUSION: Findings from the present study suggest that while CVD risk in RA is elevated, it is lower in magnitude compared to the CVD risk associated with diabetes mellitus. Therefore, considering RA a diabetes mellitus risk-equivalent with respect to hyperlipidemia management may not be appropriate.

PCSK9 Loss-of-Function Variants, Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke: Data From 9 Studies of Blacks and Whites.

BACKGROUND: PCSK9 loss-of-function (LOF) variants allow for the examination of the effects of lifetime reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) on cardiovascular events. We examined the association of PCSK9 LOF variants with LDL-C and incident coronary heart disease and stroke through a meta-analysis of data from 8 observational cohorts and 1 randomized trial of statin therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: These 9 studies together included 17 459 blacks with 403 (2.3%) having at least 1 Y142X or C679X variant and 31 306 whites with 955 (3.1%) having at least 1 R46L variant. Unadjusted odds ratios for associations between PCSK9 LOF variants and incident coronary heart disease (851 events in blacks and 2662 events in whites) and stroke (523 events in blacks and 1660 events in whites) were calculated using pooled Mantel-Haenszel estimates with continuity correction factors. Pooling results across studies using fixed-effects inverse-variance-weighted models, PCSK9 LOF variants were associated with 35 mg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI], 32-39) lower LDL-C in blacks and 13 mg/dL (95% CI, 11-16) lower LDL-C in whites. PCSK9 LOF variants were associated with a pooled odds ratio for coronary heart disease of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.28-0.92) in blacks and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.63-1.06) in whites. PCSK9 LOF variants were not associated with incident stroke (odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.48-1.47 in blacks and odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.80-1.41 in whites). CONCLUSIONS: PCSK9 LOF variants were associated with lower LDL-C and coronary heart disease incidence. PCSK9 LOF variants were not associated with stroke risk.

Race and sex differences in ambulatory blood pressure measures among HIV+ adults.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) can identify phenotypes that cannot be measured in the clinic. Determining race and sex disparities in ABPM measures among HIV+ individuals may improve strategies to diagnose and treat hypertension in this high-risk population. We compared ABPM measures between 24 African-American and 25 white HIV+ adults (36 men and 13 women). Awake systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were similar in African-Americans and whites. After multivariable adjustment, sleep SBP and DBP were 9.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 4.7, 14.8) and 8.4 mm Hg (95% CI: 4.3, 12.5) higher, respectively, among African-Americans compared with whites. After multivariable adjustment, SBP and DBP dipping ratios were 5.2% (95% CI: 1.7%, 8.7%) and 6.1% (95% CI 2.0%, 10.3%) smaller among African-Americans compared with whites. After multivariable adjustment, awake and sleep SBP and DBP were higher in men compared to women. There was no difference in SBP or DBP dipping ratios comparing men and women. The prevalence of awake masked hypertension was 42% in men versus 17% in women, and the prevalence of sleep masked hypertension was 57% among African-Americans versus 18% among whites. These data suggest that ABPM measures differ by race and sex in HIV+ adults.

Statin Intolerance and Risk of Coronary Heart Events and All-Cause Mortality Following Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Many patients report adverse reactions to, and may not tolerate, statin therapy. These patients may be at increased risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) events and mortality. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the risk for recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), CHD events, and all-cause mortality in Medicare beneficiaries with statin intolerance and in those with high adherence to statin therapy. METHODS: We studied 105,329 Medicare beneficiaries who began a moderate- or high-intensity statin dosage after hospitalization for MI between 2007 and 2013. Statin intolerance was defined as down-titrating statins and initiating ezetimibe therapy, switching from statins to ezetimibe monotherapy, having International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, diagnostic codes for rhabdomyolysis or an antihyperlipidemic adverse event, followed by statin down-titration or discontinuation, or switching between ≥3 types of statins within 1 year after initiation. High statin adherence over the year following hospital discharge was defined as proportion of days covered ≥80%. Recurrent MI, CHD events (recurrent MI or a coronary revascularization procedure), and mortality were identified from 1 year after hospital discharge through December 2014. RESULTS: Overall, 1,741 patients (1.65%) had statin intolerance, and 55,567 patients (52.8%) had high statin adherence. Over a median of 1.9 to 2.3 years of follow-up, there were 4,450 recurrent MIs, 6,250 CHD events, and 14,311 deaths. Compared to beneficiaries with high statin adherence, statin intolerance was associated with a 36% higher rate of recurrent MI (41.1 vs. 30.1 per 1,000 person-years, respectively), a 43% higher rate of CHD events (62.5 vs. 43.8 per 1,000 person-years, respectively), and a 15% lower rate of all-cause mortality (79.9 vs. 94.2 per 1,000 person-years, respectively). The multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) comparing beneficiaries with statin intolerance versus those with high statin adherence were 1.50 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.30 to 1.73) for recurrent MI, 1.51 (95% CI: 1.34 to 1.70) for CHD events, and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.87 to 1.06) for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Statin intolerance was associated with an increased risk for recurrent MI and CHD events but not all-cause mortality.

Associations of blood pressure, sunlight, and vitamin D in community-dwelling adults.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency is associated with hypertension. Blood pressure (BP) and circulating vitamin D concentrations vary with the seasons and distance from the equator suggesting BP varies inversely with the sunshine available (insolation) for cutaneous vitamin D photosynthesis. METHODS: To determine if the association between insolation and BP is partly explained by vitamin D, we evaluated 1104 participants in the Reasons for Racial and Geographic Differences in Stroke study whose BP and plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations were measured. RESULTS: We found a significant inverse association between SBP and 25(OH)D concentration and an inverse association between insolation and BP in unadjusted analyses. After adjusting for other confounding variables, the association of solar insolation and BP was augmented, -0.3.5 ±â€ŠSEM 0.01 mmHg/1 SD higher solar insolation, P = 0.01. The greatest of effects of insolation on SBP were observed in whites (-5.2 ±â€ŠSEM 0.92 mmHg/1 SD higher solar insolation, P = 0.005) and in women (-3.8 ±â€ŠSEM 1.7 mmHg, P = 0.024). We found that adjusting for 25(OH)D had no effect on the association of solar insolation with SBP. CONCLUSION: We conclude that although 25(OH)D concentration is inversely associated with SBP, it did not explain the association of greater sunlight exposure with lower BP.

Trends in Antihypertensive Medication Discontinuation and Low Adherence Among Medicare Beneficiaries Initiating Treatment From 2007 to 2012.

Low antihypertensive medication adherence is common. During recent years, the impact of low medication adherence on increased morbidity and healthcare costs has become more recognized, leading to interventions aimed at improving adherence. We analyzed a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries initiating antihypertensive medication between 2007 and 2012 to assess whether reductions occurred in discontinuation and low adherence. Discontinuation was defined as having no days of antihypertensive medication supply for the final 90 days of the 365 days after initiation. Low adherence was defined as having a proportion of days covered <80% during the 365 days after initiation among beneficiaries who did not discontinue treatment. Between 2007 and 2012, 41 135 Medicare beneficiaries in the 5% sample initiated antihypertensive medication. Discontinuation was stable during the study period (21.0% in 2007 and 21.3% in 2012; P-trend=0.451). Low adherence decreased from 37.4% in 2007 to 31.7% in 2012 (P-trend<0.001). After multivariable adjustment, the relative risk of low adherence for beneficiaries initiating treatment in 2012 versus in 2007 was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.92). Low adherence was more common among racial/ethnic minorities, beneficiaries with Medicaid buy-in (an indicator of low income), and those with polypharmacy, and was less common among females, beneficiaries initiating antihypertensive medication with multiple classes or a 90-day prescription fill, with dementia, a history of stroke, and those who reached the Medicare Part D coverage gap in the previous year. In conclusion, low adherence to antihypertensive medication has decreased among Medicare beneficiaries; however, rates of discontinuation and low adherence remain high.

Algorithms to Identify Statin Intolerance in Medicare Administrative Claim Data.

PURPOSE: To compare characteristics of patients with possible statin intolerance identified using different claims-based algorithms versus patients with high adherence to statins. METHODS: We analyzed 134,863 Medicare beneficiaries initiating statins between 2007 and 2011. Statin intolerance and discontinuation, and high adherence to statins, defined by proportion of days covered ≥80 %, were assessed during the 365 days following statin initiation. Definition 1 of statin intolerance included statin down-titration or discontinuation with ezetimibe initiation, having a claim for a rhabdomyolysis or antihyperlipidemic event followed by statin down-titration or discontinuation, or switching between ≥3 types of statins. Definition 2 included beneficiaries who met Definition 1 and those who down-titrated statin intensity. We also analyzed beneficiaries who met Definition 2 of statin intolerance or discontinued statins. RESULTS: The prevalence of statin intolerance was 1.0 % (n = 1320) and 5.2 % (n = 6985) using Definitions 1 and 2, respectively. Overall, 45,266 (33.6 %) beneficiaries had statin intolerance by Definition 2 or discontinued statins and 55,990 (41.5 %) beneficiaries had high adherence to statins. Compared with beneficiaries with high adherence to statins, those with statin intolerance and who had statin intolerance or discontinued statins were more likely to be female versus male, and black, Hispanic or Asian versus white. The multivariable adjusted odds ratio for statin intolerance by Definitions 1 and 2 comparing patients initiating high versus low/moderate intensity statins were 2.82 (95%CI: 2.42-3.29), and 8.58 (8.07-9.12), respectively, and for statin intolerance or statin discontinuation was 2.35 (2.25-2.45). CONCLUSIONS: Definitions of statin intolerance presented herein can be applied to analyses using administrative claims data.