Search

PurposeThis study aimed to evaluate associations between outpatient low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) testing and subsequent statin adherence and intensification in patients after an atherosclerotic cardiovascular (ASCVD) event.MethodsThis was a longitudinal study of adult members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California hospitalized with an ASCVD event (myocardial infarction or stroke) during January 01, 2016, to December 31, 2017, with follow-up through December 31, 2019. Outcomes were statin adherence (estimated using continuous medication gap [CMG]) and intensification (defined by an increased dose or switch to a higher-intensity statin) based on pharmacy dispensing. The exposure of interest was first outpatient LDL-C test after an ASCVD event. Baseline for follow-up was LDL-C test date or a date assigned using incidence density sampling. Multivariate logistic regression models were specified to estimate the odds ratios for statin adherence or intensification among those with vs without an LDL-C test, with adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, body mass index, and estimated glomerular filtration rate.ResultsThere were 19,604 adults hospitalized with ASCVD, including 7054 adults not on high-intensity statins. The mean age was 69.5 years and 33.0% were female. Prevalence of good adherence (continuous medication gap ≤20%) was significantly higher (80.2% vs 75.9%; odds ratio 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.49; P <.001) among participants who had an LDL-C test compared with participants who did not. LDL-C testing was associated with significantly higher rates of treatment intensification (16.1% vs 10.7%; odds ratio 1.51; 95% confidence interval,1.29-1.76; P <0.001).ConclusionsLow-density lipoprotein cholesterol testing is recommended for patients with a history of ASCVD and may be a high-value and low-cost intervention to improve adherence and statin management.

BackgroundFor more than a decade, the presence of diabetes has been considered a coronary heart disease (CHD) "risk equivalent".ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to revisit the concept of risk equivalence by comparing the risk of subsequent CHD events among individuals with or without history of diabetes or CHD in a large contemporary real-world cohort over a period of 10 years (2002 to 2011).DesignPopulation-based prospective cohort analysis.ParticipantsWe studied a cohort of 1,586,061 adult members (ages 30-90 years) of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, an integrated health care delivery system.Main measurementsWe calculated hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazard models for CHD among four fixed cohorts, defined by prevalent (baseline) risk group: no history of diabetes or CHD (None), prior CHD alone (CHD), diabetes alone (DM), and diabetes and prior CHD (DM + CHD).Key resultsWe observed 80,012 new CHD events over the follow-up period (~10,980,800 person-years). After multivariable adjustment, the HRs (reference: None) for new CHD events were as follows: CHD alone, 2.8 (95% CI, 2.7-2.85); DM alone 1.7 (95% CI, 1.66-1.74); DM + CHD, 3.9 (95% CI, 3.8-4.0). Individuals with diabetes alone had significantly lower risk of CHD across all age and sex strata compared to those with CHD alone (12.2 versus 22.5 per 1000 person-years). The risk of future CHD for patients with a history of either DM or CHD was similar only among those with diabetes of long duration (≥10 years).ConclusionsNot all individuals with diabetes should be unconditionally assumed to be a risk equivalent of those with prior CHD.

ObjectiveWe examined the prevalence, extent, severity, and prognosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) in individuals with and without diabetes (DM) who are similar in CAD risk factors.Research design and methodsWe identified 23,643 consecutive individuals without known CAD undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography. A total of 3,370 DM individuals were propensity matched in a 1-to-2 fashion to 6,740 unique non-DM individuals. CAD was defined as none, nonobstructive (1-49% stenosis), or obstructive (≥ 50% stenosis). All-cause mortality was assessed by risk-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.ResultsAt a 2.2-year follow-up, 108 (3.2%) and 115 (1.7%) deaths occurred among DM and non-DM individuals, respectively. Compared with non-DM individuals, DM individuals possessed higher rates of obstructive CAD (37 vs. 27%) and lower rates of having normal arteries (28 vs. 36%) (P < 0.0001). CAD extent was higher for DM versus non-DM individuals for obstructive one-vessel disease (19 vs. 14%), two-vessel disease (9 vs. 7%), and three-vessel disease (9 vs. 5%) (P < 0.0001 for comparison), with higher per-segment stenosis in the proximal and mid-segments of every coronary artery (P < 0.001 for all). Compared with non-DM individuals with no CAD, risk of mortality for DM individuals was higher for those with no CAD (hazard ratio 3.63 [95% CI 1.67-7.91]; P = 0.001), nonobstructive CAD (5.25 [2.56-10.8]; P < 0.001), one-vessel disease (6.39 [2.98-13.7]; P < 0.0001), two-vessel disease (12.33 [5.622-27.1]; P < 0.0001), and three-vessel disease (13.25 [6.15-28.6]; P < 0.0001).ConclusionsCompared with matched non-DM individuals, DM individuals possess higher prevalence, extent, and severity of CAD. At comparable levels of CAD, DM individuals experience higher risk of mortality compared with non-DM individuals.

ObjectiveWe examined the prevalence, extent, severity, and prognosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) in individuals with and without diabetes (DM) who are similar in CAD risk factors.Research design and methodsWe identified 23,643 consecutive individuals without known CAD undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography. A total of 3,370 DM individuals were propensity matched in a 1-to-2 fashion to 6,740 unique non-DM individuals. CAD was defined as none, nonobstructive (1-49% stenosis), or obstructive (≥ 50% stenosis). All-cause mortality was assessed by risk-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.ResultsAt a 2.2-year follow-up, 108 (3.2%) and 115 (1.7%) deaths occurred among DM and non-DM individuals, respectively. Compared with non-DM individuals, DM individuals possessed higher rates of obstructive CAD (37 vs. 27%) and lower rates of having normal arteries (28 vs. 36%) (P < 0.0001). CAD extent was higher for DM versus non-DM individuals for obstructive one-vessel disease (19 vs. 14%), two-vessel disease (9 vs. 7%), and three-vessel disease (9 vs. 5%) (P < 0.0001 for comparison), with higher per-segment stenosis in the proximal and mid-segments of every coronary artery (P < 0.001 for all). Compared with non-DM individuals with no CAD, risk of mortality for DM individuals was higher for those with no CAD (hazard ratio 3.63 [95% CI 1.67-7.91]; P = 0.001), nonobstructive CAD (5.25 [2.56-10.8]; P < 0.001), one-vessel disease (6.39 [2.98-13.7]; P < 0.0001), two-vessel disease (12.33 [5.622-27.1]; P < 0.0001), and three-vessel disease (13.25 [6.15-28.6]; P < 0.0001).ConclusionsCompared with matched non-DM individuals, DM individuals possess higher prevalence, extent, and severity of CAD. At comparable levels of CAD, DM individuals experience higher risk of mortality compared with non-DM individuals.