RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend using the 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk to guide statin therapy for primary prevention. Real-world data on adherence and consequences of nonadherence to the guidelines in primary are limited. We investigated the guideline-directed statin intensity (GDSI) and associated outcomes in a large health care system, stratified by ASCVD risk. METHODS: Statin prescription in patients without coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, or ischemic stroke were evaluated within a large health care network (2013-2017) using electronic medical health records. Patient categories constructed by the 10-year ASCVD risk were borderline (5%-7.4%), intermediate (7.5%-19.9%), or high (≥20%). The GDSI (before time of first event) was defined as none or any intensity for borderline, and at least moderate for intermediate and high-risk groups. Mean (±SD) time to start/change to GDSI from first interaction in health care and incident rates (per 1000 person-years) for each outcome were calculated. Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios for incident ASCVD and mortality across risk categories stratified by statin utilization. RESULTS: Among 282 298 patients (mean age ≈50 years), 29 134 (10.3%), 63 299 (22.4%), and 26 687 (9.5%) were categorized as borderline, intermediate, and high risk, respectively. Among intermediate and high-risk categories, 27 358 (43%) and 8300 (31%) patients did not receive any statin, respectively. Only 17 519 (65.6%) high-risk patients who were prescribed a statin received GDSI. The mean time to GDSI was ≈2 years among the intermediate and high-risk groups. At a median follow-up of 6 years, there was a graded increase in risk of ASCVD events in intermediate risk (hazard ratio=1.15 [1.07-1.24]) and high risk (hazard ratio=1.27 [1.17-1.37]) when comparing no statin use with GDSI therapy. Similarly, mortality risk among intermediate and high-risk groups was higher in no statin use versus GDSI. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world primary prevention cohort, over one-third of statin-eligible patients were not prescribed statin therapy. Among those receiving a statin, mean time to GDSI was ≈2 years. The consequences of nonadherence to guidelines are illustrated by greater incident ASCVD and mortality events. Further research can develop and optimize health care system strategies for primary prevention.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Cardiovasculares , Inhibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Reductasas , American Heart Association , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/diagnóstico , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/epidemiología , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/prevención & control , Atención a la Salud , Humanos , Inhibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Reductasas/efectos adversos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Prevención Primaria , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND The United States (US)-Mexico border is a socioeconomically underserved area. We sought to investigate whether stroke-related mortality varies between the US border and nonborder counties. METHODS AND RESULTS We used death certificates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database to examine stroke-related mortality in border versus nonborder counties in California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. We measured average annual percent changes (AAPCs) in age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100 000 between 1999 and 2018. Overall, AAMRs were higher for nonborder counties, older adults, men, and non-Hispanic Black adults than their counterparts. Between 1999 and 2018, AAMRs reduced from 55.8 per 100 000 to 34.4 per 100 000 in the border counties (AAPC, -2.70) and 64.5 per 100 000 to 37.6 per 100 000 in nonborder counties (AAPC, -2.92). The annual percent change in AAMR initially decreased, followed by stagnation in both border and nonborder counties since 2012. The AAPC in AAMR decreased in all 4 states; however, AAMR increased in California's border counties since 2012 (annual percent change, 3.9). The annual percent change in AAMR decreased for older adults between 1999 and 2012 for the border (-5.10) and nonborder counties (-5.01), followed by a rise in border counties and stalling in nonborder counties. Although the AAPC in AAMR decreased for both sexes, the AAPC in AAMR differed significantly for non-Hispanic White adults in border (-2.69) and nonborder counties (-2.86). The mortality decreased consistently for all other ethnicities/races in both border and nonborder counties. CONCLUSIONS Stroke-related mortality varied between the border and nonborder counties. Given the substantial public health implications, targeted interventions aimed at vulnerable populations are required to improve stroke-related outcomes in the US-Mexico border area.
Asunto(s)
Accidente Cerebrovascular/mortalidad , Adolescente , Adulto , Negro o Afroamericano/estadística & datos numéricos , Distribución por Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Arizona/epidemiología , California/epidemiología , Femenino , Hispánicos o Latinos/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Masculino , México , Persona de Mediana Edad , New Mexico/epidemiología , Distribución por Sexo , Accidente Cerebrovascular/etnología , Texas/epidemiología , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Población Blanca/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The recognition of and response to undertreatment of heart failure (HF) patients can be complicated. A clinical reminder can facilitate use of guideline-concordant ß-blocker titration for HF patients with depressed ejection fraction. However, the design must consider the cognitive demands on the providers and the context of the work. OBJECTIVE: This study's purpose is to develop requirements for a clinical decision support tool (a clinical reminder) by analyzing the cognitive demands of the task along with the factors in the Cabana framework of physician adherence to guidelines, the health information technology (HIT) sociotechnical framework, and the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework of health services implementation. It utilizes a tool that extracts information from medical records (including ejection fraction in free text reports) to identify qualifying patients at risk of undertreatment. METHODS: We conducted interviews with 17 primary care providers, 5 PharmDs, and 5 Registered Nurses across three Veterans Health Administration outpatient clinics. The interviews were based on cognitive task analysis (CTA) methods and enhanced through the inclusion of the Cabana, HIT sociotechnical, and PARIHS frameworks. The analysis of the interview data led to the development of requirements and a prototype design for a clinical reminder. We conducted a small pilot usability assessment of the clinical reminder using realistic clinical scenarios. RESULTS: We identified organizational challenges (such as time pressures and underuse of pharmacists), knowledge issues regarding the guideline, and information needs regarding patient history and treatment status. We based the design of the clinical reminder on how to best address these challenges. The usability assessment indicated the tool could help the decision and titration processes. CONCLUSION: Through the use of CTA methods enhanced with adherence, sociotechnical, and implementation frameworks, we designed a decision support tool that considers important challenges in the decision and execution of ß-blocker titration for qualifying HF patients at risk of undertreatment.
Asunto(s)
Antagonistas Adrenérgicos beta/uso terapéutico , Sistemas de Apoyo a Decisiones Clínicas , Adhesión a Directriz , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/tratamiento farmacológico , Relación Dosis-Respuesta a Droga , Humanos , Interfaz Usuario-ComputadorRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The American Heart Association's 2020 Strategic Goals emphasize the value of optimizing risk factor status to reduce the burden of morbidity and mortality. In this study, we aimed to quantify the overall and marginal impact of favorable cardiovascular risk factor (CRF) profile on healthcare expenditure and resource utilization in the United States among those with and without cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population was derived from the 2012 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Direct and indirect costs were calculated for all-cause healthcare resource utilization. Variables of interest included CVD diagnoses (coronary artery disease, stroke, peripheral artery disease, dysrhythmias, or heart failure), ascertained by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification codes, and CRF profile (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia, smoking, physical activity, and obesity). Two-part econometric models were used to study expenditure data. The final study sample consisted of 15 651 MEPS participants (58.5±12 years, 54% female). Overall, 5921 (37.8%) had optimal, 7002 (44.7%) had average, and 2728 (17.4%) had poor CRF profile, translating to 54.2, 64.1, and 24.9 million adults in United States, respectively. Significantly lower health expenditures were noted with favorable CRF profile across CVD status. Among study participants with established CVD, overall healthcare expenditures with optimal and average CRF profile were $5946 and $3731 less compared with those with poor CRF profile. The respective differences were $4031 and $2560 in those without CVD. CONCLUSIONS: Favorable CRF profile is associated with significantly lower medical expenditure and healthcare utilization among individuals with and without established CVD.