Search

BackgroundTHEMIS (NCT01991795) showed that in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and stable coronary artery disease (CAD) but with no prior myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, ticagrelor plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) decreased the incidence of ischaemic cardiovascular events compared with placebo plus ASA. To complement these findings, we assessed disease burden and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) in US patients with CAD and T2D, but without a prior MI or stroke.MethodsThis observational study used 2013-2014 data from the Diabetes Collaborative Registry linked to Medicare administrative claims. Two cohorts of patients with T2D were studied: patients at high cardiovascular risk (THEMIS-like cohort; N = 56 040) and patients at high cardiovascular risk or taking P2Y12 inhibitors (CAD-T2D cohort; N = 69 790). Outcomes included the composite of all-cause death, MI and stroke; the individual events from the composite endpoint; HRU; and costs.ResultsMedian age was 73.0 years, and median follow-up was 1.3 years in both cohorts. Event rates of the composite outcome were 16.34 (95% confidence interval: 16.31-16.37) and 17.64 (17.61-17.67) per 100 person-years for the THEMIS-like and CAD-T2D cohorts, respectively. The incidence rate of bleeding events was 0.13 events per 100 person-years in both cohorts. Healthcare costs per patient-year were USD 8741 and USD 9150 in the THEMIS-like and CAD-T2D cohorts, respectively.ConclusionsPatients in the THEMIS-like cohort and the broader CAD-T2D population had similarly substantial cardiovascular event rates and healthcare costs, indicating that patients with CAD and T2D similar to the THEMIS population are at an increased cardiovascular risk.

A post hoc analysis of the SUSTAIN 6 trial evaluated the effect of once-weekly semaglutide on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) stratified by the number of vascular territories with atherosclerosis at baseline. The study found that semaglutide was associated with a consistent reduction in CV events across all groups, including those with polyvascular disease. The absolute risk reduction for CV events was greater in people with polyvascular disease, suggesting that they may derive greater benefit from semaglutide treatment due to their higher CV risk. However, the study had limitations, and further research is needed to confirm these findings. [Extracted from the article]

BackgroundPrior studies have described racial/ethnic disparities in door-to-balloon (DTB) time for patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to compare DTB time between different racial/ethnic groups undergoing primary PCI for ST-elevation myocardial infarction in Get With the Guidelines (GWTG).HypothesisThere may be differences in D2B time associated with race/ethnicity.MethodsWe identified 7445 white (n = 6365), African American (n = 568), and Hispanic (n = 512) patients undergoing primary PCI.ResultsThere were no differences in the median DTB time between white (74 minutes; intraquartile range [IQR], 54-99), African American (77 minutes; IQR, 57-100), and Hispanic (75 minutes; IQR, 56-100) (P = 0.13) patients. There were no crude differences in DTB time ≤90 minutes; however, after adjusting for confounders, African American race was associated with lower odds of DTB time ≤90 minutes (odds ratio [OR]: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70-0.99; P = 0.04). This association was seen in African American males (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.55-0.80) but not African American females (OR: 1.27; 95% CI: 0.96-1.68). Overall, Hispanic ethnicity was not associated with a difference in DTB time ≤90 minutes (OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.77-1.25; P = 0.88); although Hispanic males did have a slightly longer median DTB time compared with whites. During the study, the proportion of patients with DTB times ≤90 minutes increased for all groups, and mortality was similar between groups (white 3.8%, African American 3.0%, Hispanic 4.1%, P = 0.62).ConclusionsIn GWTG-Coronary Artery Disease, small differences in DTB times persist among different races/ethnicities. However, the proportion achieving DTB times ≤90 minutes has increased substantially for all patients over time, and there was no association between race/ethnicity and in-hospital mortality.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) are closely linked conditions, and the presence of each condition promotes incidence and progression of the other. In this study, we sought to better understand the medical journey of patients with CKD and ASCVD and to uncover patients' and healthcare providers' (HCPs) perceptions and attitudes toward CKD and ASCVD diagnosis, treatment, and care coordination. Cross-sectional, US-population-based online surveys were conducted between May 18, 2021, and June 17, 2021, among 239 HCPs (70 of whom were primary care physicians, or PCPs) and 195 patients with CKD and ASCVD. PCPs reported personally diagnosing CKD in 78% and ASVD in 64% of their patients, respectively. PCPs reported they are more likely to serve as the overall coordinator of their patient's care (89%), while slightly more than half of PCPs self-identified as a patient's coordinator of care specifically for CKD (54%) or ASCVD (59%). In contrast, patients viewed their PCP as their coordinator of care for CKD (25%) or ASCVD (9%). PCPs who personally treated patients with CKD and ASCVD most often recalled primarily prescribing or recommending pharmacologic treatments for CKD and ASCVD; however, patients reported that lifestyle modification was the most common treatment modality they had ever used to manage CKD and ASCVD. CKD and ASCVD are interrelated cardiometabolic conditions with underlying risk factors that can be managed in a primary care setting. However, few patients in our study considered their PCP to be the coordinator of their care for CKD or ASCVD. PCPs can and should take a more active role in educating patients and coordinating care for those with CKD and ASCVD. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a medical condition where the kidneys are damaged, and their function is reduced. CKD is often linked to other health problems. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is a condition where cholesterol builds up in the arteries, leading to reduced blood flow and heart issues. This study wanted to understand what patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) know about these two conditions and how they are managed. We sent questionnaires to 195 patients with CKD and ASCVD as well as 239 HCPs who treat patients with CKD and ASCVD. The results showed primary care physicians (PCPs) are the main healthcare providers for most patients, but specialists are often involved in managing CKD and ASCVD. PCPs play a crucial role in helping patients understand how other health care conditions can impact their risk for CKD and ASCVD. PCPs can also guide patients on making lifestyle changes to lower their risk of these diseases and can refer patients to specialists, while still providing guidance on management of these conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

4 Dave CV, Kim SC, Goldfine AB, Glynn RJ, Tong A, Patorno E. Risk of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes after addition of SGLT2 inhibitors versus sulfonylureas to baseline GLP-1RA therapy. Before matching, patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group were younger, more likely to be on metformin/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists/insulin, and had lower rates of comorbid heart failure, microvascular disease, stroke and chronic kidney disease (Table S2). Keywords: cardiovascular disease; real-world evidence; SGLT2 inhibitor; sulphonylureas; type 2 diabetes EN cardiovascular disease real-world evidence SGLT2 inhibitor sulphonylureas type 2 diabetes 2402 2409 8 07/04/23 20230801 NES 230801 INTRODUCTION Sulphonylureas (SUs) are widely used in type 2 diabetes (T2D), particularly in resource-constrained regions. Lower risk of cardiovascular events and death associated with initiation of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors versus sulphonylureas: Analysis from the CVD-REAL 2 study. [Extracted from the article]

Key Points: Question: Can a coordinated, multifaceted intervention increase the prescription of 3 evidence-based therapies among adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease? Findings: In a cluster randomized clinical trial of cardiology clinics across the US, participants in the intervention group were more likely to be prescribed all 3 therapies (high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and/or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists) after an intervention of assessment, education, and feedback vs those in the usual care group (173/457 [37.9%] vs 85/588 [14.5%], respectively, which is a difference of 23.4%). Meaning: A coordinated, multifaceted intervention increased prescription of 3 groups of evidence-based therapies in adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Importance: Evidence-based therapies to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk in adults with type 2 diabetes are underused in clinical practice. Objective: To assess the effect of a coordinated, multifaceted intervention of assessment, education, and feedback vs usual care on the proportion of adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prescribed all 3 groups of recommended, evidence-based therapies (high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEIs] or angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitors and/or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists [GLP-1RAs]). Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster randomized clinical trial with 43 US cardiology clinics recruiting participants from July 2019 through May 2022 and follow-up through December 2022. The participants were adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease not already taking all 3 groups of evidence-based therapies. Interventions: Assessing local barriers, developing care pathways, coordinating care, educating clinicians, reporting data back to the clinics, and providing tools for participants (n = 459) vs usual care per practice guidelines (n = 590). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants prescribed all 3 groups of recommended therapies at 6 to 12 months after enrollment. The secondary outcomes included changes in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors and a composite outcome of all-cause death or hospitalization for myocardial infarction, stroke, decompensated heart failure, or urgent revascularization (the trial was not powered to show these differences). Results: Of 1049 participants enrolled (459 at 20 intervention clinics and 590 at 23 usual care clinics), the median age was 70 years and there were 338 women (32.2%), 173 Black participants (16.5%), and 90 Hispanic participants (8.6%). At the last follow-up visit (12 months for 97.3% of participants), those in the intervention group were more likely to be prescribed all 3 therapies (173/457 [37.9%]) vs the usual care group (85/588 [14.5%]), which is a difference of 23.4% (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 4.38 [95% CI, 2.49 to 7.71]; P <.001) and were more likely to be prescribed each of the 3 therapies (change from baseline in high-intensity statins from 66.5% to 70.7% for intervention vs from 58.2% to 56.8% for usual care [adjusted OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.06-2.83]; ACEIs or ARBs: from 75.1% to 81.4% for intervention vs from 69.6% to 68.4% for usual care [adjusted OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.14-2.91]; SGLT2 inhibitors and/or GLP-1RAs: from 12.3% to 60.4% for intervention vs from 14.5% to 35.5% for usual care [adjusted OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.08-4.64]). The intervention was not associated with changes in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors. The composite secondary outcome occurred in 23 of 457 participants (5%) in the intervention group vs 40 of 588 participants (6.8%) in the usual care group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.46 to 1.33]). Conclusions and Relevance: A coordinated, multifaceted intervention increased prescription of 3 groups of evidence-based therapies in adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03936660 This cluster randomized clinical trial assesses the effect of a coordinated, multifaceted intervention of assessment, education, and feedback vs usual care on the prescribing of all 3 groups of recommended therapies (high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and/or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists) for adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individuals with type 2 diabetes are at increased risk of both renal and cardiovascular events. The convergence of type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease, including heart failure, requires management by a multidisciplinary health care team. Primary care clinicians are likely to be the first and most frequent point of contact for individuals with type 2 diabetes who are at high risk of cardiorenal disease and therefore play a pivotal role in early diagnosis, establishment of effective treatment strategies, and coordination of care. This article presents a clinical perspective with multidisciplinary collaboration on a patient case representative of those seen in routine clinical practice. The authors assess reasons why patients may not receive evidence-based care and identify opportunities to initiate therapies that reduce cardiovascular and renal events in the primary care setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) first became approved for inoperable patients followed by high, intermediate-, and low-risk patients, referrals to TAVR centers have rapidly increased. The purpose of this study was to investigate referral patterns to a large academic TAVR center in the state of North Carolina and evaluate differences between externally and internally referred patients.Methods: Data for all patients who underwent TAVR at our institution between November 2014 and March 2020 were pulled from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. The electronic medical record was used to determine the referral source. The descriptive statistical analysis was performed using Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington).Results: 491 patients underwent TAVR at our institution between November 2014 and March 2020. Half of the patients were referred by a cardiologist within the same health system (N = 250, 50.9%). Other referral sources included a cardiologist external to the health system (N = 210, N = 42.8%) and a surgeon or proceduralist (such as urologist, surgeon, or gastroenterologist) during the workup for another procedure (N = 26, 5.3%). Over time, there was a trend toward an increasing proportion of patients referred by a cardiologist external to our system, but this trend did not reach statistical significance (20.0% in 2014, 29.2% in 2015, 30.7% in 2016, 53.0% in 2017, 36% in 2018, 48.4% in 2019, and 56.8% in 2020, p=0.06 using the Mann-Kendall trend test). Externally referred patients were less likely to have private insurance and were more likely to have a reduced ejection fraction and had a higher mean gradient across the valve. Postprocedure, externally referred patients were more likely to have the procedure under moderate sedation and less likely to be discharged home.Conclusions: This study presents the referral pattern to a large TAVR center in North Carolina. Over time, there was an increase in external referrals suggesting that TAVR is increasingly adopted as an important component of the management of aortic valve stenosis. Internally and externally referred patients have differences in baseline demographic and clinical characteristics which may have an impact on clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]