Cardiovascular risk factor management in patients with diabetes: Does management differ with disease duration?

AIMS: Our objective was to examine risk factor modification targets and treatment in relation to duration of diabetes. METHODS: The Diabetes Mellitus Status in Canada (DM-SCAN) study collected data on 5109 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in 2012 in primary care. We compared the prevalence of vascular complications, treatment targets, and interventions between patients with diagnosed diabetes duration ≤10 and > 10 years. RESULTS: Physicians more frequently assigned HbA1c (glycated hemoglobin) targets of 7.1-8.5% (54-69 mmol/mol) to patients with longer duration of diabetes (n = 1647) (19.8% vs 9.5%, p < 0.001). Patients with longer duration of diabetes were less likely to achieve HbA1c targets of ≤7.0% (53 mmol/mol) (39% vs. 55%, p < 0.001), had similar likelihood of achieving blood pressure targets of ≤130/80 mmHg (38% vs. 36%, p = 0.26) and were more likely to achieve LDL-C targets of ≤2.0 mmol/L (≤77.3 mg/dL) (63% vs. 53%, p < 0.001) compared to patients with shorter duration of diabetes (n = 3462). Achievement of all three targets between both groups were similar (13% vs. 13%, p = 0.82). Overall, patients with longer duration of diabetes were more likely to be prescribed anti-hyperglycemic, anti-hypertensive, lipid-lowering medications and referred for diabetes education. CONCLUSIONS: Only 13% of patients achieved glycemic, blood pressure, and LDL-C targets irrespective of duration of diabetes. Despite being managed with more medications, patients with longer duration of diabetes were less likely to achieve glycemic targets. More focus is needed on developing methods to bridge best care and real-world practice.

Treatment Inertia in Patients With Familial Hypercholesterolemia.

Background We studied care gap in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) with respect to lipid-lowering therapy. Methods and Results We enrolled patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or FH and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol >2.0 mmol/L despite maximally tolerated statin therapy. During follow-up physicians received online reminders of treatment recommendations of 2009 patients (median age, 63 years, 42% women), 52.4% had CVD only, 31.7% FH only, and 15.9% both CVD and FH. Patients with FH were younger and more likely to be women and non-White with significantly higher baseline low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol level (mmol/L) as compared with patients with CVD (FH 3.92±1.48 versus CVD 2.96±0.94, P<0.0001). Patients with FH received less statin (70.6% versus 79.2%, P=0.0001) at baseline but not ezetimibe (28.1% versus 20.4%, P=0.0003). Among patients with FH only, 45.3% were at low-density lipoprotein target (≥ 50% reduction from pre-treatment level or low-density lipoprotein <2.5 mmol/L) at baseline and increasing to 65.8% and 73.6% by visit 2 and 3, respectively. Among patients with CVD only, none were at recommended level (≤2.0 mmol/L) at baseline and 44.3% and 53.3% were at recommended level on second and third visit, respectively. When primary end point was analyzed as a difference between baseline and last available follow-up observation, only 22.0% of patients with FH only achieved it as compared with 45.8% with CVD only (P<0.0001) and 55.2% with both FH+CVD (P<0.0001). Conclusions There is significant treatment inertia in patients with FH including those with CVD. Education focused on patients with FH should continue to be undertaken.

Does management of lipid lowering differ between specialists and primary care: Insights from GOAL Canada.

BACKGROUND: We studied whether significant differences in care gaps exist between specialists and primary care physicians (PCPs). METHODS: GOAL Canada enrolled patients with CVD or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and LDL-C > 2.0 mmol/L despite maximally tolerated statin therapy. During follow-up, physicians received online reminders of treatment recommendations based on Canadian Guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 177 physicians (58% PCPs) enrolled 2009 patients; approximately half of the patients were enrolled by each physician group. Patients enrolled by specialists were slightly older (mean age 63 years vs 62), female (45% vs 40%), Caucasian (77% vs 65%), and had a slightly higher systolic pressure and lower heart rate. Patients enrolled by specialists had less frequent history of FH, diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease and liver disease but more frequent history of coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation and premature family history of CVD. There was no significant baseline difference in LDL-C, HDL-C or non-HDL-C, although total cholesterol and triglycerides were slightly higher in patients managed by PCPs. At baseline, PCPs were more likely to use statins (80% vs 73%, P = .0002) and other therapies such as niacin or fibrate (10% vs 6%, P = .0006) but similar use of ezetimibe (24% vs 27%, P = .15). At the end of follow-up, specialists used less statins (70% vs 77%, P = .0005) and other therapies (6% vs 10%, P = .007) but more ezetimibe (45% vs 38%, P = .01) and the same frequency of PCSK9i (28% vs 27%, P = .65). The proportion of patients achieving the recommended LDL-C level of 2.0 mmol/L or below (primary endpoint) was similar at last available visit between specialists and PCPs (44% vs 42%, P = .32). CONCLUSION: Despite minor differences in the clinical profile of their patients, both PCPs and specialists actively participate in the management of lipid-lowering therapy in high-risk CVD patients and experience similar challenges and care gaps.

GOAL Canada: Physician Education and Support Can Improve Patient Management.

BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread use of statins, approximately 40% to 50% of Canadian patients with known cardiovascular disease do not achieve the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal. Guidelines Oriented Approach to Lipid lowering (GOAL) is an investigator-initiated study aiming to ascertain the use of second- and third-line therapy and its impact on LDL-C goal achievement in a real-world setting. METHODS: GOAL enrolled patients with clinical vascular disease or familial hypercholesterolemia and LDL-C > 2.0 mmol/L despite maximally tolerated statin therapy. During follow-up, physicians managed patients as clinically indicated but with online reminders of guideline recommendations. RESULTS: Of 2009 patients enrolled (median age 63 years, 42% were female), baseline total cholesterol was 5.5 ± 1.4 mmol/L, LDL-C was 3.3 ± 1.3 mmol/L, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 4.1 ± 1.4 mmol/L, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 1.3 ± 0.4 mmol/L, and triglycerides were 2.0 ± 1.5 mmol/L. Lipid-lowering therapy used at baseline was statin therapy in 76% (with 24% statin intolerant) and ezetimibe in 25%. During follow-up, the proportion of patients achieving an LDL-C level of < 2.0 mmol/L increased significantly to 50.8% as a result of additional lipid-lowering therapy. Patients achieving the recommended LDL-C level were more likely to not be statin intolerant (83.8% vs 70.7%, P < 0.0001) and to be taking a high-efficacy type and dose of statin (52.4% vs 35.9%, P < 0.0001). The 3 top reasons for not using the recommended therapy with ezetimibe were patient refusal in 33%, not needed in 22%, and intolerance in 20%, whereas for PCSK9i the reasons were cost in 26%, not needed in 27%, or patient refusal in 25%. CONCLUSION: The results indicate the feasibility of optimizing management, resulting in achievement of the guideline-recommended LDL-C level. This has the potential to translate into reductions in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality of Canadian patients.

CONTEXTE: Malgré l'utilisation répandue des statines, environ 40 à 50 % des patients canadiens atteints d'une maladie cardiovasculaire connue n'atteignent pas les taux cibles de cholestérol à lipoprotéines de basse densité (C-LDL). L'étude GOAL ( G uidelines O riented A pproach to L ipid lowering) est une étude entreprise par un chercheur afin d'évaluer, en contexte réel, l'utilisation de traitements de deuxième et de troisième intention et les effets de ceux-ci sur l'atteinte des taux cibles de C-LDL. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Des patients atteints d'une maladie vasculaire clinique ou d'une hypercholestérolémie familiale, présentant un taux de C-LDL > 2,0 mmol/l malgré un traitement par une statine à la dose maximale tolérée, ont été inscrits à l'étude GOAL. Pendant la période de suivi, les médecins prenaient en charge le traitement de leurs patients selon les besoins cliniques, mais en recevant par voie électronique des rappels des recommandations formulées dans les lignes directrices. RÉSULTATS: Chez les 2009 patients inscrits à l'étude (âge médian : 63 ans; femmes : 42 %), les taux initiaux moyens étaient les suivants : cholestérol total initial : 5,5 ± 1,4 mmol/l, C-LDL : 3,3 ± 1,3 mmol/l, C non HDL (autre que le cholestérol à lipoprotéines de haute densité) : 4,1 ± 1,4 mmol/l, C-HDL (des lipoprotéines de haute densité) : 1,3 ± 0,4 mmol/l et triglycérides : 2,0 ± 1,5 mmol/l. Le traitement hypolipidémiant utilisé au début de l'étude était composé d'une statine chez 76 % des participants (24 % des patients ne toléraient pas les statines) et d'ézétimibe chez 25 %. Pendant la période de suivi, la proportion de patients atteignant un taux de C-LDL < 2,0 mmol/l a augmenté de façon significative, jusqu'à atteindre 50,8 %, en raison de l'utilisation d'hypolipidémiants additionnels. Les patients atteignant les taux cibles de C-LDL étaient plus susceptibles de ne pas être intolérants aux statines (83,8 % vs 70,7 %, p < 0,0001) et de prendre un type et une dose de statine hautement efficaces (52,4 % vs 35,9 %, p < 0,0001). Les trois principales raisons évoquées pour expliquer le fait de n'avoir pas eu recours au traitement recommandé par l'ézétimibe étaient le refus du patient (33 %), l'absence de besoin (22 %) et l'intolérance (20 %), alors que dans le cas des inhibiteurs de la PCSK9, les raisons données étaient plutôt le coût élevé (26 %), l'absence de besoin (27 %) et le refus du patient (25 %). CONCLUSION: Les résultats de cette étude montrent la faisabilité de l'optimisation de la prise en charge, qui entraîne l'atteinte des taux de C-LDL recommandés dans les lignes directrices. Ces résultats pourraient se traduire par des réductions de la morbidité et de la mortalité d'origine cardiovasculaire chez les patients canadiens.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) use and dosing in Canadian practice: Insights from the optimising pharmacotherapy in the management approach to lowering risk in atrial fibrillation (OPTIMAL AF) Programme.

AIMS: To estimate the rate of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant (NOAC) dosing that is lower- and higher-than-recommended and to describe the reasons for NOAC dose discordance with Health Canada prescribing information. METHODS: The OPTIMAL AF Programme was an observational cohort quality assessment initiative in which primary and specialty care physicians in eight provinces provided a snapshot of their anticoagulated non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients through either an electronic medical record (EMR) system or standardised, paper-based data collection methods. RESULTS: Data on 1681 NVAF patients receiving oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention was provided by 102 physicians. A NOAC was prescribed in 1379 patients (8%). The standard recommended dose was prescribed in 849 (76%) and reduced dose in 264 (24%). Concordance of the reduced dose with Health Canada prescribing information occurred in 154 patients (58%). The standard dose was concordant in 805 (95%). The main reasons for the use of discordant reduced doses were age of 80 years or more, elevated creatinine, prior bleeding or dose recommended by specialist. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The vast majority of Canadian patients meeting the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) guideline recommendations for OAC to decrease AF-related stroke risk were receiving product monograph-concordant NOAC dosing (85%). Nonetheless, this highlights the fact that an important proportion of patients were prescribed doses that are discordant and opportunities remain to improve NOAC dosing to optimise stroke prevention.

Association Between Patient and Physician Sex and Physician-Estimated Stroke and Bleeding Risks in Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Physicians treating nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) assess stroke and bleeding risks when deciding on anticoagulation. The agreement between empirical and physician-estimated risks is unclear. Furthermore, the association between patient and physician sex and anticoagulation decision-making is uncertain. METHODS: We pooled data from 2 national primary care physician chart audit databases of patients with AF (Facilitating Review and Education to Optimize Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation and Coordinated National Network to Engage Physicians in the Care and Treatment of Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Chart Audit) with a combined 1035 physicians (133 female, 902 male) and 10,927 patients (4567 female and 6360 male). RESULTS: Male physicians underestimated stroke risk in female patients and overestimated risk in male patients. Female physicians estimated stroke risk well in female patients but underestimated the risk in male patients. Risk of bleeding was underestimated in all. Despite differences in risk assessment by physician and patient sex, > 90% of patients received anticoagulation across all subgroups. There was modest agreement between physician estimated and calculated (ie, CHADS2 score) stroke risk: Kappa scores were 0.41 (0.35-0.47) for female physicians and 0.34 (0.32-0.36) for male physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to examine the association between patient and physician sex influences and stroke and bleeding risk estimation in AF. Although there were differences in agreement between physician estimated stroke risk and calculated CHADS2 scores, these differences were small and unlikely to affect clinical practice; further, despite any perceived differences in the accuracy of risk assessment by sex, most patients received anticoagulation.

Glycated Hemoglobin Level Goal Achievement in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes in Canada: Still Room for Improvement.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the clinical histories and management of adults with type 2 diabetes who were not reaching their target glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels and to identify barriers to achieving therapeutic goals. METHODS: Practice assessment surveys and practice audits were completed by 88 primary care physicians (PCPs) in the Diabetes Mellitus Assessment of Clinical managemenT In ONtario (DM-ACTION) program and by 56 diabetes specialists in the Diabetes Mellitus IMproving PAtient Care in our communiTies (DM-IMPACT) program. The DM-ACTION audit analyzed data from 1,173 adults with A1C levels ≥7.3% who were not prescribed insulin; the DM-IMPACT audit included 135 individuals with similar characteristics. RESULTS: Most PCPs (92%) and specialists (88%) stated that they typically recommend A1C levels of ≤7.0%; more than 90% indicated that they adjusted antihyperglycemic therapy within 3 months if suboptimal A1C targets endured. Among the DM-ACTION patients, the median A1C level was 7.8%; the median time between the last 2 A1C tests was 5 months; 58% were taking ≤2 noninsulin antihyperglycemic agents; and adjustment of glucose-lowering therapy was noted for only 56%. The corresponding values for the DM-IMPACT patients were 8.0%, 4 months, 43% and 68%, respectively. PCPs and specialists attributed patients' factors and patients' adherence as primary causes of poor achievement of guideline-recommended targets. PCPs perceived patients' factors as the predominant barrier to optimizing care, but the specialists believed that therapeutic inertia stems from a wide range and a varied combination of patient-centric factors. CONCLUSIONS: Type 2 diabetes remains a health-care challenge in Canada and globally. Primary care physicians and specialists attributed patients' factors as principal obstacles to optimal diabetes management. However, physician-associated therapeutic inertia may also be an important barrier to unmet therapeutic goals.

Insights Into the Current Management of Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes in the Ontario Primary Care Setting.

OBJECTIVE: The Goal Oriented controL of Diabetes in the Elderly populatioN (GOLDEN) Program assessed the management of older persons with type 2 diabetes in Canadian primary care. METHODS: Data were extracted from the records of 833 consecutively identified persons 65 years of age or older who had type 2 diabetes and were taking 1 antihyperglycemic agent or more; they were managed by 64 physicians from 36 Ontario clinics. RESULTS: More than half (53%) had glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels of 7.0% or lower, 41% had blood pressure levels below 130/80 mm Hg, and 73% had low-density lipoprotein levels of 2.0 mmol/L or lower; 19% met all 3 criteria. Over the past year, 11% had been assessed for frailty, 16% for cognitive dysfunction and 19% for depression; 88% were referred for eye checkups, and 83% had undergone foot examinations. One-tenth were taking 4 or more antihyperglycemic agents, 87% statins and 52% an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. More than half of those with high clinical complexity had A1C levels of 7.0% or lower; of these, one-third were taking a sulfonylurea, and one-fifth were taking insulin. In the patients with A1C levels of 7.0% or above and low clinical complexity, there was often no up-titration or initiation of additional antihyperglycemic agents. CONCLUSIONS: Older persons with type 2 diabetes often have multiple comorbidities. Unlike eye and foot examinations, there was less emphasis on evaluating for frailty, cognitive dysfunction and depression. The GOLDEN patients had generally well-controlled glycemic, blood pressure and cholesterol profiles, but whether these would be reflected in a "sicker" population is not known. Personalized strategies are necessary to avoid undertreatment of "healthy" older patients and overtreatment of the frail elderly.

Use of Evidence-Based Therapy for Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Canadian Outpatients With Atrial Fibrillation: From the Facilitating Review and Education to Optimize Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation (FREEDOM AF) and Co-ordinated National Network to Engage Physicians in the Care and Treatment of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (CONNECT AF).

Using data collected from 2 national atrial fibrillation (AF) primary care physician chart audits (Facilitating Review and Education to Optimize Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation [FREEDOM AF] and Co-ordinated National Network to Engage Physicians in the Care and Treatment of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [CONNECT AF]), we evaluated the frequency of, and factors associated with, the use of cardiovascular (CV) evidence-based therapies in Canadian AF outpatients with at least 1 CV risk factor or co-morbidity. Of the 11,264 patients enrolled, 9,495 (84.3%) were eligible for one or more CV evidence-based therapies. The proportions of patients with AF receiving all eligible guideline-recommended therapies were 40.8% of patients with coronary artery disease, 48.9% of patients with diabetes mellitus, 40.2% of patients with heart failure, 96.7% of patients with hypertension, and 55.1% of patients with peripheral arterial disease. Factors that were independently associated with nonreceipt of all indicated evidence-based therapies included sinus rhythm rather than AF at baseline and liver disease. In conclusion, although most Canadian outpatients with AF have CV risk factors or co-morbidities, a substantial portion of these patients did not receive all guideline-recommended therapies. These findings suggest that there is an opportunity to improve the quality of care for patients with AF in Canada.

The Risk Stratification and Stroke Prevention Therapy Care Gap in Canadian Atrial Fibrillation Patients.

BACKGROUND: Canadian atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines recommend that all AF patients be risk stratified with respect to stroke and bleeding, and that most should receive antithrombotic therapy. METHODS: As part of the Canadian Facilitating Review and Education to Optimize Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation (FREEDOM AF) chart audit, data were collected on 4670 patients ≥ 18 years old without significant valvular heart disease from the primary care practices of 474 physicians (February to September, 2011). RESULTS: Physicians did not provide an estimate of stroke and bleeding risk in 15% and 25% of patients, respectively. When risks were provided, they were on the basis of a predictive stroke and bleeding risk index in only 50% and 26% of patients, respectively. There were over- and underestimation of stroke and bleeding risk in a large proportion of patients. Antithrombotic therapy included warfarin (90%); 24% of patients had a time in the therapeutic range (TTR) < 50%, 9% between 50% and 60%, 11% between 60% and 70%, and 56% had a TTR ≥ 70%. CONCLUSIONS: In a large Canadian AF population, primary care physicians did not provide a stroke or bleeding risk in a substantial proportion of their AF patients. When estimates were provided, they were on the basis of a predictive stroke and bleeding risk index in less than half of the patients. Furthermore, there was under- and overestimation of stroke and bleeding risk in a substantial proportion of patients. As many as 1 in 3 patients receiving warfarin have their TTR < 60%. These findings suggest an opportunity to enhance knowledge translation to primary care physicians.

Risk stratification and stroke prevention therapy care gaps in Canadian atrial fibrillation patients (from the Co-ordinated National Network to Engage Physicians in the Care and Treatment of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation chart audit).

The objectives of this national chart audit (January to June 2013) of 6,346 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF; ≥18 years without a significant heart valve disorder) from 647 primary care physicians were to (1) describe the frequency of stroke and bleed risk assessments in patients with nonvalvular AF by primary care physicians, including the accuracy of these assessments relative to established predictive indexes; (2) outline contemporary methods of anticoagulation used; and (3) report the time in the therapeutic range among patients prescribed warfarin. An annual stroke risk assessment was not undertaken in 15% and estimated without a formal risk tool in 33%; agreement with CHADS2 score estimation was seen in 87% of patients. Major bleeding risk assessment was not undertaken in 25% and estimated without a formal risk tool in 47%; agreement with HAS-BLED score estimation was observed in 64% with physician overestimation in 26% of patients. Antithrombotic therapy included warfarin (58%), dabigatran (22%), rivaroxaban (14%), and apixaban (<1%). Among warfarin-treated patients, the median international normalized ratio was 2.4 and time in therapeutic range (TTR) was 73%; however, the TTR was <50% in 845 (25%), 50% to 69% in 674 (20%), and ≥70% in 1,827 (55%) patients. In conclusion, we describe a contemporary real-world elderly population with AF at important risk for stroke. There is apparent overestimation of bleeding risk in many patients. Warfarin was the dominant stroke prevention treatment; however, the suggested TTR target was achieved in only 55% of these patients.

Discordance between physicians' estimation of patient cardiovascular risk and use of evidence-based medical therapy.

Despite clinical trial evidence supporting the use of antiplatelets, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and statins for cardiovascular risk reduction in high-risk patients, use of such therapies in real-world outpatients in the prospective Vascular Protection Registry and the Guidelines Oriented Approach to Lipid Lowering Registry was suboptimal (78%, 55%, and 75%, respectively). The most frequent reason physicians cited for nonprescription of statins (33%) was that patients were not high risk enough and/or current guidelines did not support statin use. In conclusion, outpatients at high cardiovascular risk continue to be undertreated as a result of a combination of physician underestimation of cardiovascular risk (knowledge gap) and barriers to implementation of evidence-based therapy (practice gap).

Missed opportunities for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Strong evidence supports the use of antithrombotic agents (antiplatelets or oral anticoagulants), statins and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; beta-blockers are additionally indicated in patients with coronary artery disease. OBJECTIVES: The investigators sought to determine the extent to which guideline-recommended treatments and target goals are adopted in ambulatory patients with cardiovascular disease in Canada. METHODS: Two large, prospective, community-based registries (the Vascular Protection Registry and the Guideline Oriented Approach to Lipid Lowering Registry) enrolled 9809 outpatients with coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors from primary care settings in nine provinces across Canada between 2001 and 2004. This analysis focused primarily on patients with cardiovascular disease (n=6296). RESULTS: At baseline, antithrombotics, statins and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were used in 92%, 80% and 57% of patients, respectively; beta-blockers were used in 59% of patients with coronary artery disease. The dosing of most drug therapies was suboptimal compared with guideline-recommended dosing derived from clinical trials. Treatment goals for cardiovascular risk factors were suboptimally attained: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in 50% of patients, total to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio in 51% of patients, systolic and diastolic blood pressure in 58% and 78% of patients, respectively, and waist circumference and body mass index in 45% and 19%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest specific opportunities for improving the care of patients with cardiovascular disease in Canada. The focus must now shift from awareness of treatment gaps to implementation of effective solutions.

Supporting a call to action for peripheral artery disease: insights from two prospective clinical registries.

BACKGROUND: Patients affected by peripheral arterial disease (PAD) incur a heightened risk of adverse cardiovascular events, including stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular mortality. We examined risk factors, medications, and prognosis of outpatients with PAD enrolled in two national, prospective, practice-based Canadian registries that encompassed 484 physician practices: the Vascular Protection and Guideline Oriented Approach in Lipid Lowering registries. METHODS: The 2 registries were combined to analyze 9810 patients with vascular disease, diabetes mellitus, or age 65 years or older plus at least 2 additional cardiovascular risk factors. Risk factors, medications, and major cardiovascular events were recorded at baseline and again at 6 months' follow-up. RESULTS: Compared with patients without PAD (n = 8303), those with PAD (n = 1507) had substantially worse risk factor profiles and were more likely to have coexisting coronary or cerebrovascular disease. Both groups received high rates of treatment with evidence-based therapies, including antiplatelet drugs, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Despite this, patients with PAD had a nearly twofold higher risk of major cardiovascular events at 6 months than non-PAD patients (7.3% vs 4.1%; P < .0001). After adjustment for multiple confounding factors, the presence of PAD at baseline continued to predict a heightened risk of adverse vascular sequelae (odds ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.01; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: These data support a strong relationship between PAD and worsened vascular prognosis that is independent of both conventional vascular risk factors and concomitant cardiovascular disease. The presence of PAD should therefore provide a clear impetus for intensive risk factor modification and use of preventive medical therapy in affected patients.