LDL-C goal attainment among patients newly diagnosed with coronary heart disease or diabetes in a commercial HMO.

BACKGROUND: Patients beginning treatment with lipid-modifying drugs should have their serum lipid levels monitored and, if necessary, their drug therapy adjusted to reach and maintain their treatment goals. Patients with coronary heart disease or diabetes are at high risk of coronary events and are particularly important target groups for monitoring and dose adjustment of lipid-modifying drug therapy. OBJECTIVE: to determine from administrative claims the rates of lipid testing, treatment with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering drug therapy, and LDL-C goal attainment defined as LDL-C < 100 mg per DL in the time period after a new diagnosis of coronary heart disease or diabetes among patients who had not previously received lipid-modifying drug therapy. METHODS: an index date was defined by a new diagnosis of coronary heart disease or diabetes between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2000, preceded by a 12-month pre-index period without lipid-modifying drug treatment in a commercial health maintenance organization (HMO) database for the southeastern united states. coronary heart disease (CHD) was defined by a diagnosis code for myocardial infarction (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] code 410.xx) or angina/ischemic heart disease (411.xx), or a procedural code for angioplasty (icd-9-cM 36.1x-36.3x; Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] 92980-92984, 92995-92996) or coronary artery bypass graft (icd-9-cM 36.01, 36.02, 36.05, 36.09; CPT 33510-33545). diabetes was identified either by an icd-9-cM diagnosis code 250.xx or a pharmacy claim for an antihyperglycemic medication. Patients were followed in the post-index period until loss of eligibility or a maximum of 42 months (mean = 26 months, range=12-42 months). We calculated the proportion of patients with lipids treated and at LDL-C goal (defined as V < 100 mg per DL) in months 1-6 after the index date. among those not at goal in months 1-6, we estimated the proportion treated to goal in months 7-12 and in month 7 to the end of the post-index period. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of goal attainment in months 7-12 and in month 7 to the end of the post-index period among patients who were not at goal in months 1-6. RESULTS: Laboratory lipid values were available for 4,676 (40.4%) of 11,552 patients who had not previously received lipid-modifying drug therapy in months 1-6 after the index date, of whom 72.7% (n = 3,400) had an LDL-C > or =100 mg per DL (63.5% for CHD and 76.7% for diabetes). Of 1,245 patients tested and treated with lipid-modifying therapy in months 1-6, 485 (39.0%) were at LDL-C goal in months 1-6 (48.2% of CHD and 28.8% of diabetes patients), and 760 (61.0%) were not at LDL-C goal (51.8% of those with CHD and 71.2% of those with diabetes). Goal attainment (cumulative) among those treated improved to 50.1% in months 7-12 and 58.4% in month 7 to the end of the post-index period. Patients not attaining goal in months 1-6, and who continued treatment in months 7-12 and month 13 to the end of the post-index period, had a 48.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44.0%-53.6%) predicted probability of attaining their goals. The odds of goal attainment in month 7 to the end of post-index period (among those not at goal in months 1-6) were greater for (a) age e 65 years (odds ratio [or] = 2.45, 95% CI, 1.62-3.72), (b) history of hypertension (or = 1.91, 95% CI, 1.20-3.03), (c) greater number of distinct medications (or = 1.07, 95% CI, 1.01-1.14 per additional medication), (d) months of observation post-index (or = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.01-1.08 per additional month), and (e) months supply of lipid-modifying medication (or = 1.04, 95% CI, 1.01-1.07 per additional month), and were lower for LDL-C > or = 130 mg per DL in months 1-6 (or = 0.53, 95% CI, 0.35-0.82) and a history of dyslipidemia (or = 0.54, 95% CI, 0.35-0.83). The odds of LDL-C goal attainment were not affected by diagnosis (CHD vs. diabetes), gender, statin titration (34% of patients), lipid-modifying drug switching (39% of patients), or treatment with a high-potency LDL-C-lowering drug dosage (one of sufficient strength to reduce LDL-C by > 40%). CONCLUSION: of patients receiving lipid testing and lipid drug treatment in the 6 months after an initial diagnosis of CHD or diabetes, 61% were not at the LDL-C goal of < 100 mg per DL. Among those not at LDL-C goal in the first 6 months of treatment, only about half who continued treatment subsequently attained their LDL-C goal, despite statin titration or switching of their lipid-modifying drug therapy.

Reassessment of cardiovascular risk in diabetes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review recent trials and reassess cardiovascular risk in people with diabetes. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent clinical trials have tended to focus on lower-risk participants with diabetes who have had event rates considerably lower than participants in the early lipid trials. Statin studies have generally shown benefit in those without cardiovascular disease and at lower levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Results of fibrate and glitazone studies have been mixed; the question of benefit among statin-treated patients remains unanswered. Investigators failed to confirm the benefits of glucose control observed in the original Diabetes Mellitus, Insulin Glucose Infusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction study possibly due to study design issues. Epidemiologic follow-up of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial showed sustained benefit of glucose control. A number of studies have shown the benefit of inpatient control of blood glucose. We await the results of ongoing blood pressure trials and other ongoing trials, which should provide much new information. A conceptual model of cardiovascular risk for people with diabetes mellitus based on the UK Prospective Diabetes Study outcomes model is discussed. SUMMARY: The majority of adults with diabetes have a substantially greater risk compared with those without diabetes and a small percentage has very high risk. A minority of individuals may have considerably lower 10-year risk.

Trends in lipid management among patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in lipid management (cholesterol testing, treatment, and goal attainment) among patients with diabetes and to analyze the factors associated with initiation of lipid-lowering therapy. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal, retrospective study of patients with diabetes identified during a 24-month baseline period (January 1, 1995, to December 31, 1996) and for whom follow-up was continued for 5 years (1997 to 2001). Generalized estimating equations were used to test for time trend effects in lipid management. We modeled the days from baseline to the first lipid-lowering prescription fill date with a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: Rates of lipid testing, treatment, and goal attainment significantly improved (P<0.001) during the 5-year study period: from 37% to 67% for lipid testing; from 19% to 41% for treatment with a lipid-lowering agent; from 22% to 37% for achievement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels < 100 mg/dL; and from 54% to 75% for achievement of LDL-C levels < 130 mg/dL. The relative likelihood (hazard rate) of treatment with lipid-lowering agents was greater for patients with LDL-C levels > or = 100 mg/dL relative to patients with LDL-C concentrations < 100 mg/dL. Treatment with lipid-lowering agents of patients with a cardiovascular event during follow-up was approximately 3 times more likely relative to those without such an event. CONCLUSION: We found that rates of lipid testing, treatment, and goal attainment improved significantly between 1997 and 2001. Nevertheless, ample room for improvement of these rates continues to exist. Particular attention may be warranted to ensure that patients with diabetes receive lipid-lowering agents not only after a cardiovascular event but also before such an event occurs.

Macrovascular risk factors in patients with diabetes: physician treatment strategies and extent of control.

OBJECTIVE: To describe current approaches used by physicians to address macrovascular risk factors among patients with diabetes and their effect on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure, and cholesterol (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C]) goal attainment. METHODS: Newly referred or diagnosed patients with diabetes (N = 1,808) under the care of 133 community physicians were enrolled in a 12-month prospective multi-center observational study. The invited physicians treat a large number of patients with diabetes and included endocrinologists, internists, and primary care physicians. Patient and physician characteristics, physician ranking of treatment strategy priority, and patient ranking of diabetes-related complications of greatest concern were recorded at enrollment. Follow-up treatment rates and goal attainment rates for glucose (HbA1c <7%), cholesterol (LDL-C <100 mg/dL), and blood pressure (less than 130/80 mm Hg) were examined, both overall and for the most frequently occurring treatment strategies. RESULTS: After evaluating the metabolic profiles of patients enrolled in the study, physicians assigned the highest treatment priority to glucose control for 67.6% of patients. Treatment rates during the 12-month follow-up were highest for glycemic control (87.2%), followed by blood pressure management (77.9%), and lipid control (63.9%). Among treated patients, goal attainment for HbA1c, LDL-C, and blood pressure was 57.6%, 47.7%, and 22.8%, respectively. Regardless of treatment strategy, follow-up goal attainment was the highest for HbA1c (54.8% to 72.3%), followed by LDL-C (41.7% to 48.4%), and lowest for blood pressure (12.0% to 37.1%). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest the need for strategies that emphasize combined glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol treatment in order to achieve more effective control of microvascular and macrovascular risk factors among patients with diabetes.

Estimating cholesterol treatment rates among individuals with multiple risk factors and without coronary heart disease.

This retrospective study examined lipid-lowering therapy treatment rates from 2000 to 2001 using the Ingenix LabRx Database. Patients with multiple risk factors without coronary heart disease were identified based on the presence of >/=2 of the following: men >/=45 years, women >/=55 years, hypertension, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol <40 mg/dl, total cholesterol >/=200 mg/dl, or obesity. Lipid treatment rates were estimated among those needing therapy (defined as low-density lipoprotein cholesterol >/=130 mg/dl or currently receiving lipid-lowering therapy). The overall lipid-lowering therapy treatment rate was 38% and the estimated lipid treatment gap (percent needing treatment who were not receiving it) was 62%.

Adequacy of glycemic, lipid, and blood pressure management for patients with diabetes in a managed care setting.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the adequacy of glycemic, lipid, and blood pressure (BP) management for diabetic patients in a managed care organization (MCO). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients aged > or =18 years with diabetes (n=7,114) were retrospectively identified over a 2-year period from the MCO's administrative database based on the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set 2000 selection criteria using pharmacy, laboratory, and encounter data. Analyses examined demographics and percentages of patients tested and meeting American Diabetes Association goals for HbA1c, lipids, and BP, both overall and for those receiving medication treatment versus no treatment. RESULTS: Testing rates for A1C, LDL cholesterol, and BP were 77, 54, and 95%, respectively. The percentage of patients tested who were at goal were 37% for A1C, 23% for LDL cholesterol, and 41% for systolic BP. Of the patients in our sample, 72% were treated for glycemic control, 64% were treated for BP control, and only 28% were treated for lipid control. Of the patients who received medication treatment, less than one-third were at goal for A1C (29%) and LDL cholesterol (32%), whereas 40% were at goal for systolic BP. CONCLUSIONS: We found that although a large percentage of diabetic patients were tested for A1C, LDL cholesterol, and systolic BP, a much smaller percentage had reached their respective goals. More aggressive glycemic, lipid, and BP management appears to be needed to improve care for these patients.