Association Between Pharmacy Proximity With Cardiovascular Medication Use and Risk Factor Control in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Poor neighborhood-level access to health care, including community pharmacies, contributes to cardiovascular disparities in the United States. The authors quantified the association between pharmacy proximity, antihypertensive and statin use, and blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) among a large, diverse US cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cross-sectional analysis of Black and White participants in the REGARDS (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke) study during 2013 to 2016 was conducted. The authors designated pharmacy proximity by census tract using road network analysis with population-weighted centroids within a 10-minute drive time, with 5- and 20-minute sensitivity analyses. Pill bottle review measured medication use, and BP and LDL-C were assessed using standard methods. Poisson regression was used to quantify the association between pharmacy proximity with medication use and BP control, and linear regression for LDL-C. Among 16 150 REGARDS participants between 2013 and 2016, 8319 (51.5%) and 8569 (53.1%) had an indication for antihypertensive and statin medication, respectively, and pharmacy proximity data. The authors did not find a consistent association between living in a census tract with higher pharmacy proximity and antihypertensive medication use, BP control, or statin medication use and LDL-C levels, regardless of whether the area was rural, suburban, or urban. Results were similar among the 5- and 20-minute drive-time analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Living in a low pharmacy proximity census tract may be associated with antihypertensive and statin medication use, or with BP control and LDL-C levels. Although, in this US cohort, outcomes were similar for adults living in high or low pharmacy proximity census tracts.

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.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Icosapent Ethyl in REDUCE-IT USA: Results From Patients Randomized in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In 3146 REDUCE-IT USA (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl Intervention Trial USA) participants, icosapent ethyl (IPE) reduced first and total cardiovascular events by 31% and 36%, respectively, over 4.9 years of follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used participant-level data from REDUCE-IT USA, 2021 US costs, and IPE costs ranging from $4.59 to $11.48 per day, allowing us to examine a range of possible medication costs. The in-trial analysis was participant-level, whereas the lifetime analysis used a Markov model. Both analyses considered value from a US health sector perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental costs divided by incremental quality-adjusted life-years) of IPE compared with standard care (SC) was the primary outcome measure. There was incremental gain in quality-adjusted life-years with IPE compared with SC using in-trial (3.28 versus 3.13) and lifetime (10.36 versus 9.83) horizons. Using an IPE cost of $4.59 per day, health care costs were lower with IPE compared with SC for both in-trial ($29 420 versus $30 947) and lifetime ($216 243 versus $219 212) analyses. IPE versus SC was a dominant strategy in trial and over the lifetime, with 99.7% lifetime probability of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. At a medication cost of $11.48 per day, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was $36 208 in trial and $9582 over the lifetime. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, at $4.59 per day, IPE offers better outcomes than SC at lower costs in trial and over a lifetime and is cost-effective at $11.48 per day for conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds. Treatment with IPE should be strongly considered in US patients like those enrolled in REDUCE-IT USA. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01492361.

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.

Age-based disparities in statin use for primary prevention in US adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2013-2020.

Statin use among younger adults at high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk compared with older adults at the same risk is unclear. We determined prevalent statin use by 10-year ASCVD risk and age among US participants aged 40-75 eligible for risk-indicated primary prevention statins from the 2013-2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey cycles. Among 3,503 participants, statin use by ASCVD risk (5-<7.5%, 7.5-<20%, and ≥20%) was 9.4%, 9.0%, and 12.2% among those age 40-54 compared to 22.0%, 23.9%, and 14.3% among adults 55-64 years and 39.3%, 33.6%, and 38.1% age 65-75 years. After adjusting for sociodemographic and healthcare access, the prevalence ratio (vs. 65-75 years) for statin use among adults with an ASCVD risk of 7.5-<20% age 40-54 years was 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39,0.41) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.87,0.88) for adults 55-64 years. Among high ASCVD-risk adults aged 40-75 years, primary prevention statin use was lower among adults <65 years despite similar ASCVD risk as older adults.

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.

Estimated Population Health Benefits of Intensive Systolic Blood Pressure Treatment Among SPRINT-Eligible US Adults.

BACKGROUND: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) demonstrated an intensive (<120 mm Hg) vs. standard (<140 mm Hg) systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal lowered cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Estimating the effect of intensive SBP lowering among SPRINT-eligible adults most likely to benefit can guide implementation efforts. METHODS: We studied SPRINT participants and SPRINT-eligible participants in the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study and National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). A published algorithm of predicted CVD benefit with intensive SBP treatment was used to categorize participants into low, medium, or high predicted benefit. CVD event rates were estimated with intensive and standard treatment. RESULTS: Median age was 67.0, 72.0, and 64.0 years in SPRINT, SPRINT-eligible REGARDS, and SPRINT-eligible NHANES participants, respectively. The proportion with high predicted benefit was 33.0% in SPRINT, 39.0% in SPRINT-eligible REGARDS, and 23.5% in SPRINT-eligible NHANES. The estimated difference in CVD event rate (standard minus intensive) was 7.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.4-10.7), 8.4 (95% CI 8.2-8.5), and 6.1 (95% CI 5.9-6.3) per 1,000 person-years in SPRINT, SPRINT-eligible REGARDS participants, and SPRINT-eligible NHANES participants, respectively (median 3.2-year follow-up). Intensive SBP treatment could prevent 84,300 (95% CI 80,800-87,920) CVD events per year in 14.1 million SPRINT-eligible US adults; 29,400 and 28,600 would be in 7.0 million individuals with medium or high predicted benefit, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the population health benefit from intensive SBP goals could be achieved by treating those characterized by a previously published algorithm as having medium or high predicted benefit.

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.

Evidence for Age Bias Contributing to Therapeutic Inertia in Blood Pressure Management: A Secondary Analysis of SPRINT.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence supporting the cardiovascular and cognitive benefits of intensive blood pressure management, older adults have the lowest rates of blood pressure control. We determined the association between age and therapeutic inertia (TI) in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), and whether frailty, cognitive function, or gait speed moderate or mediate these associations. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of SPRINT of participant visits with blood pressure above randomized treatment goal. We categorized baseline age as <60, 60 to <70, 70 to <80, and ≥80 years and TI as no antihypertensive medication intensification per participant visit. Generalized estimating equations generated odds ratios for TI associated with age, stratified by treatment group based on nested models adjusted for baseline frailty index score (fit [frailty index, ≤0.10], less fit [0.100.10). CONCLUSIONS: Older age is associated with greater TI independent of physical or cognitive function, implying age bias in hypertension management.

Hypertension Statistics for US Adults: An Open-Source Web Application for Analysis and Visualization of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Data.

BACKGROUND: Data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey are freely available and can be analyzed to produce hypertension statistics for the noninstitutionalized US population. The analysis of these data requires statistical programming expertise and knowledge of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey methodology. METHODS: We developed a web-based application that provides hypertension statistics for US adults using 10 cycles of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, 1999 to 2000 through 2017 to 2020. We validated the application by reproducing results from prior publications. The application's interface allows users to estimate crude and age-adjusted means, quantiles, and proportions. Population counts can also be estimated. To demonstrate the application's capabilities, we estimated hypertension statistics for noninstitutionalized US adults. RESULTS: The estimated mean systolic blood pressure (BP) declined from 123 mm Hg in 1999 to 2000 to 120 mm Hg in 2009 to 2010 and increased to 123 mm Hg in 2017 to 2020. The age-adjusted prevalence of hypertension (ie, systolic BP≥130 mm Hg, diastolic BP≥80 mm Hg or self-reported antihypertensive medication use) was 47.9% in 1999 to 2000, 43.0% in 2009 to 2010, and 44.7% in 2017 to 2020. In 2017 to 2020, an estimated 115.3 million US adults had hypertension. The age-adjusted prevalence of controlled BP, defined by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association BP guideline, among nonpregnant US adults with hypertension was 9.7% in 1999 to 2000, 25.0% in 2013 to 2014, and 21.9% in 2017 to 2020. After age adjustment and among nonpregnant US adults who self-reported taking antihypertensive medication, 27.5%, 48.5%, and 43.0% had controlled BP in 1999 to 2000, 2013 to 2014, and 2017 to 2020, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The application developed in the current study is publicly available at https://bcjaeger.shinyapps.io/nhanesShinyBP/ and produced valid, transparent and reproducible results.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of initial treatment with single-pill combination antihypertensive medications.

Hypertension guidelines recommend initiating treatment with single pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive medications, but SPCs are used by only one-third of treated hypertensive US adults. This analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of initial treatment with SPC dual antihypertensive medications compared with usual care monotherapy in hypertensive US adults.The validated BP Control Model-Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Policy Model simulated initial SPC dual therapy (two half-standard doses in a single pill) compared with initial usual care monotherapy (half-standard dose when baseline systolic BP < 20 mmHg above goal and one standard dose when ≥20 mmHg above goal). Secondary analyses examined equivalent dose monotherapy (one standard dose) and equivalent dose dual therapy as separate pills (two half-standard doses). The primary outcomes were direct healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over 10 years from a US healthcare sector perspective.At 10 years, initial dual drug SPC was projected to yield 0.028 (95%UI 0.008 to 0.051) more QALYs at no greater cost ($73, 95%UI -$1 983 to $1 629) than usual care monotherapy. In secondary analysis, SPC dual therapy was cost-effective vs. equivalent dose monotherapy (ICER $8 000/QALY gained) and equivalent dose dual therapy as separate pills (ICER $57 000/QALY gained). At average drug prices, initiating antihypertensive treatment with SPC dual therapy is more effective at no greater cost than usual care initial monotherapy and has the potential to improve BP control rates and reduce the burden of CVD in the US.

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.

Lipid-Lowering Therapy Use and Intensification Among United States Veterans Following Myocardial Infarction or Coronary Revascularization Between 2015 and 2019.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9i (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 serine protease inhibitors) are prescribed after a myocardial infarction (MI) or elective coronary revascularization may improve lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) intensification and reduce recurrent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events. We described the use and intensification of LLT among US veterans who had a MI or elective coronary revascularization between July 24, 2015, and December 9, 2019, within 12 months of hospital discharge. METHODS: LLT intensification was defined as increasing statin dose, or initiating a statin, ezetimibe, or a PCSK9i, overall and among those with an LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) ≥70 or 100 mg/dL. Poisson regression was used to determine patient characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of LLT intensification following hospitalization for MI or elective coronary revascularization. RESULTS: Among 81 372 index events (mean age, 69.0 years, 2.3% female, mean LDL-C 89.6 mg/dL, 33.8% with LDL-C <70 mg/dL), 39.7% were not taking any LLT, and 22.0%, 37.2%, and 0.6% were taking a low-moderate intensity statin, a high-intensity statin, and ezetimibe, respectively, before MI/coronary revascularization during the study period. Within 14 days, 3 months, and 12 months posthospitalization, 33.3%, 41.9%, and 47.3%, respectively, of veterans received LLT intensification. LLT intensification was most common among veterans taking no LLT (82.5%, n=26 637) before MI/coronary revascularization. Higher baseline LDL-C, having a lipid test, and attending a cardiology visit were each associated with a greater likelihood of LLT intensification, while age ≥75 versus <65 years was associated with a lower likelihood of LLT intensification within 12 months posthospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Less than half of veterans received LLT intensification in the year after MI or coronary revascularization suggesting a missed opportunity to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk.

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.