Elizabeth Marrett

Assessment of severity and frequency of self-reported hypoglycemia on quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antihyperglycemic agents: A survey study.

BackgroundSome oral antihyperglycemic agents may increase risk of hypoglycemia and thereby reduce patient quality of life. Our objective was to assess the impact of the severity and frequency of self-reported hypoglycemia on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antihyperglycemic agents.FindingsA follow-up survey was conducted in participants with self-reported type 2 diabetes treated with oral antihyperglycemic agents from the US National Health and Wellness Survey 2007. Data were collected on the severity and frequency of hypoglycemic episodes in the 6 months prior to the survey, with severity defined as mild (no interruption of activities), moderate (some interruption of activities), severe (needed assistance of others), or very severe (needed medical attention). HRQoL was assessed using the EuroQol-5D Questionnaire (EQ-5D) US weighted summary score (utility) and Worry subscale of the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS). Of the participants who completed the survey (N = 1,984), mean age was 58 years, 57% were male, 72% reported an HbA1c <7.0%, and 50% reported treatment with a sulfonylurea-containing regimen. Hypoglycemic episodes were reported by 63% of patients (46% mild, 37% moderate, 13% severe and 4% very severe). For patients reporting hypoglycemia, mean utility score was significantly lower (0.78 versus 0.86, p < 0.0001) and mean HFS score was significantly higher (17.5 versus 6.2, p < 0.0001) compared to patients not reporting hypoglycemia. Differences in mean scores between those with and without hypoglycemia increased with the level of severity (mild, moderate, severe, very severe) for utility (0.03, 0.09, 0.18, 0.23) and HFS (6.1, 13.9, 20.1, 25.6), respectively. After adjusting for age, gender, weight gain, HbA1c, microvascular complications, and selected cardiovascular conditions, the utility decrement was 0.045 (by level of severity: 0.009, 0.055, 0.131, 0.208), and the HFS increase was 9.6 (by severity: 5.3, 12.4, 17.6, 23.2). HRQoL further decreased with greater frequency of hypoglycemic episodes.ConclusionsSelf-reported hypoglycemia is independently associated with lower HRQoL, and the magnitude of this reduction increases with both severity and frequency of episodes in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antihyperglycemic agents.

Automated Outreach to Increase Primary Adherence to Cholesterol-Lowering Medications

BACKGROUND Primary nonadherence occurs when new prescriptions are not dispensed. Little is known about how to reduce primary nonadherence. We performed a randomized controlled trial to evaluate an automated system to decrease primary nonadherence to statins for lowering cholesterol. METHODS Adult members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California with no history of statin use within the past year who did not fill a statin prescription after 1 to 2 weeks were passively enrolled. The intervention group received automated telephone calls followed 1 week later by letters for continued nonadherence; the control group received no outreach. The primary outcome was a statin dispensed up to 2 weeks after delivery of the letter. Secondary outcomes included refills at intervals up to 1 year. Intervention effectiveness was determined by intent-to-treat analysis and Fisher exact test. Subgroups were examined using logistic regression. RESULTS There were 2606 participants in the intervention group and 2610 in the control group. Statins were dispensed to 42.3% of intervention participants and 26.0% of control participants (absolute difference, 16.3%; P < .001). The relative risk for the intervention vs control group was 1.63 (95% CI, 1.50-1.76). Intervention effectiveness varied slightly by age (P = .045) but was effective across all age strata. Differences in the frequency of statin dispensations persisted up to 1 year (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS The intervention was effective in reducing primary nonadherence to statin medications. Because of low marginal costs for outreach, this strategy appears feasible for reducing primary nonadherence. This approach may generalize well to other medications and chronic conditions.

Cardiovascular risk factor burden, treatment, and control among adults with chronic kidney disease in the United States

BACKGROUND Cardiovascular disease is a major concern in persons with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We assessed the current burden of cardiovascular risk factors and differences in risk factor treatment and control in the general US adult population by CKD status. METHODS A cross-sectional study of 10,741 adults aged 20+ years from the 2007-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey was performed. Persons were categorized into 3 groups: CKD stages 3 to 5 (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), CKD stages 1 and 2 (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g and estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), and no CKD. RESULTS The majority of adults with CKD stages 3 to 5 (79.8%) and stages 1 and 2 (59.1%) had ≥2 cardiovascular risk factors, substantially higher than adults without CKD (32.7%, P < .001). Diabetes was the most strongly associated risk factor and was highly specific for CKD stages 1 and 2 (prevalence ratio 2.53, 95% CI 2.21-2.89) and, to a lesser extent, CKD stages 3 to 5 (prevalence ratio 1.59, 95% CI 1.38-1.84). Most adults with diagnosed risk factors reported medication use for risk factor control, and pharmacologic treatment was more common among those with than without CKD. However, poor risk factor control was also common among persons treated for risk factors with CKD compared with those without CKD. CONCLUSIONS There continues to be a substantial cardiovascular risk factor burden among adults with CKD stages 3 to 5 and, to a lesser extent, adults with CKD stages 1 and 2 when compared with adults without CKD. Overall, optimal risk factor control is low in adults with CKD, highlighting the need for aggressive cardiovascular risk reduction in adults with CKD.

Treatment pattern changes in high-risk patients newly initiated on statin monotherapy in a managed care setting.

BACKGROUND For high-risk patients who do not achieve guideline-recommended LDL-C levels, more intensive treatment including statin-uptitration to higher doses or potency, as well as combination therapy may be considered. A better understanding of statin treatment patterns in real-world clinical practice may contribute to improved lipid-lowering management in these patients. OBJECTIVE We determined treatment pattern changes among patients with high risk of cardiovascular disease who were not at low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal on statin monotherapy. METHODS Treatment pattern changes were evaluated among patients newly initiated on statins between January 1, 2006, and August 31, 2009, in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. Rates and mean time to first and second treatment changes were examined in patients with claims for coronary heart disease (CHD), atherosclerotic vascular disease (AVD), and diabetes mellitus during 12 months before index, who were not at LDL-C <70 mg/dL at their first-eligible LDL-C test (≥ 4 weeks after index). Therapy change was assessed for 12 months after the LDL-C result. RESULTS Of 11,473 eligible subjects, 61.3% had diabetes, 26.6% had CHD and AVD, and 12.1% had CHD and AVD and diabetes. At index, patients were prescribed medium-potency levels of statins, including simvastatin (44.7%), atorvastatin (31.5%), and other statins (23.8%). Mean ± SD LDL-C before statin initiation was 138 ± 34 mg/dL, and at the first-eligible LDL-C result after index, it was 101 ± 25 mg/dL. During follow-up, 7444 subjects (64.9%) experienced a first treatment change, with mean time to change of 93.8 ± 92 days, whereas 4029 (36.1%) had no treatment change. Discontinuation of index therapy occurred in 46.9% of subjects and medication switches or titration in 18.0% (index statin titration, switch to other statins, other lipid-lowering therapies [LLT], including ezetimibe). Of the discontinuers, 27.4% restarted LLT. Of subjects with a first treatment change who did not discontinue, 48.9% experienced a second therapy change. Results were similar between the 3 high-risk groups. CONCLUSIONS In this managed-care setting, among patients with high risk of cardiovascular disease who were not at LDL-C goal, statins were usually started at medium-potency doses without being titrated up, whereas nearly one-half had a discontinuation of LLT within 12 months. These treatment patterns indicate the need for better patient and provider education as well as other system-wide modifications to improve medication adherence.

Residual Dyslipidemia Among United States Adults Treated With Lipid Modifying Therapy (Data from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009-2010)

Despite available medications for dyslipidemia, many treated patients still have suboptimal lipid levels. The aim of this study was to examine the extent of residual dyslipidemia in United States adults. Of 2509 United States adults aged ≥18 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2009-2010, 1,129 (41.8% weighted) had hyperlipidemia on the basis of modified treatment guidelines for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol according to risk category or pharmacologic treatment. Of these, 484 (42.4%) were treated with lipid-modifying therapy, and the proportions of subjects who still had LDL cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, or non-HDL cholesterol not at recommended levels were examined. In this cohort treated for hyperlipidemia, the mean age was 60.1 ± 14.9 years, and 52% were men. Only 36.5% of subjects receiving treatment for hyperlipidemia were at goal or normal levels for all 3 lipids (LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). LDL cholesterol remained higher than goal for 37.5% of subjects, 28.9% had low HDL cholesterol, and 36.3% had elevated triglycerides. One, 2, and 3 lipid parameters were at abnormal levels in 32.4%, 23.0%, and 8.2% of subjects, respectively; 36.5% had no lipid disorder. In addition, 38.6% of treated subjects were above non-HDL cholesterol goal, and even in those at LDL cholesterol goal, 12.9% were not at non-HDL cholesterol goal. Those with cardiovascular disease conditions had poorer goal attainment of LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and composite all lipids than those without cardiovascular disease. In conclusion, despite widely available treatments for dyslipidemia, many patients remain at suboptimal lipid levels, indicating need for greater adherence to lifestyle and medical therapies to address these gaps in the management of dyslipidemia.

Burden of peripheral arterial disease in Europe and the United States: a patient survey

BackgroundThe aim of the current study was to quantify the burden of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) with respect to health-related quality of life, work productivity and activity impairment, and healthcare resource utilization.MethodsData were obtained from the 2010 EU National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS), which included participants from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK (5EU, N = 57,805) as well as the 2010 US NHWS (N = 75,000). The NHWS is an annual, cross-sectional, self-administered Internet survey which employs a stratified random sampling frame to match the age and gender characteristics of the NHWS sample with known population statistics. Participants who self-reported a diagnosis of PAD were compared with participants who did not self-report a diagnosis of PAD on health-related quality of life (mental and physical component summary scores and health utilities from the Short Form-12v2), work productivity and activity impairment (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire), and healthcare resource use in terms of the number of physician visits, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations in the past six months through regression modeling adjusting for demographics and health characteristics.ResultsA total of 743 (1.29%) and 777 (1.04%) participants self-reported a diagnosis of PAD in the 5EU and US, respectively. After adjusting for demographics and health characteristics, patients with PAD reported worse health-related quality of life, as measured by health utilities (5EU: 0.66 vs. 0.70; US: 0.66 vs. 0.72; all p < .05), greater overall work impairment percentage (5EU: 38.27% vs. 27.48%; US: 23.89% vs. 14.26%) and greater healthcare resource use compared to participants without PAD (all p < .05).ConclusionsThese results suggest a significant burden for patients with PAD in both the 5 EU countries and the US with respect to both quality of life and economic outcomes. Improved management of these patients may have profound effects from both patient and societal perspectives.

Time to treatment initiation with oral antihyperglycaemic therapy in US patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes

Aim: To compare the time from initial diagnosis to initiation with oral antihyperglycaemic treatment in younger versus older patients with type 2 diabetes, and to evaluate factors associated with initiating treatment.

Reasons given by general practitioners for non-treatment decisions in younger and older patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United Kingdom: a survey study.

BackgroundOlder patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus are less likely to receive antihyperglycaemic therapy compared to their younger counterparts. The purpose of this study was to assess the reasons of general practitioners (GPs) for not treating younger and older patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus with antihyperglycaemic agents.MethodsIn a survey conducted between November 2009 and January 2010, 358 GPs from the United Kingdom selected reasons for not initiating antihyperglycaemic therapy in younger (< 65 years) and older (≥65 years) patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus and untreated with any antihyperglycaemic agent for at least six months following diagnosis. Thirty-six potential reasons were classified into four major categories: Mild hyperglycaemia, Factors related to antihyperglycaemic agents, Comorbidities and polypharmacy, and Patient-related reasons. Reasons for non-treatment were compared between younger (n = 1, 023) and older (n = 1, 005) patients.ResultsNon-treatment reasons related to Mild hyperglycaemia were selected more often by GPs for both younger (88%) and older (86%) patients than those in other categories. For older patients, Factors related to antihyperglycaemic agents (46% vs. 38%) and Comorbidities and polypharmacy (33% vs. 19%), both including safety-related issues, were selected significantly (p < 0.001) more often by GPs. No between-group difference was observed for the Patient-related reasons category. The GP-reported HbA1c threshold for initiating antihyperglycaemic therapy was significantly (p < 0.001) lower for younger patients (mean ± standard deviation: 7.3% ± 0.7) compared to older patients (7.5% ± 0.9).ConclusionsGPs selected reasons related to Mild hyperglycaemia for non-treatment of their untreated patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus, despite nearly one-third of these patients having their most recent HbA1c value ≥7%. The findings further suggest that safety-related issues may influence the non-treatment of older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in high-risk patients treated with atorvastatin monotherapy in the United Kingdom: analysis of a primary-care database.

Abstract Objective: British clinical guidelines recommend statins as first-line lipid-modifying treatment (LMT) for patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). We undertook an observational study to assess total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in high-risk patients who were treated with atorvastatin monotherapy by UK general practitioners. Methods: This retrospective database study included patients with a prescription for atorvastatin monotherapy between November 30, 2008, and November 30, 2011, with the index date defined as the first atorvastatin prescription during this period. Eligible high-risk patients with evidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), atherosclerotic vascular disease (AVD), diabetes mellitus (DM), or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) were required to have ≥1 TC and LDL-C measurement between 3 and 12 months after the index date, and continuous enrollment 1 year before and 1 year after the index date. Cholesterol levels were assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines: TC <4.0 mmol/L or LDL-C <2.0 mmol/L. Results: Of 2999 high-risk patients (60.2% men; mean [SD] age = 67.9 [10.6] years) meeting selection criteria, 23.9% 28.2%, 36.2%, and 11.6% received prescriptions for atorvastatin 10, 20, 40, and 80 mg, respectively (percentages do not sum to 100 because of rounding). Across all doses, the mean (SD) follow-up TC was 4.08 (0.80) mmol/L and LDL-C 2.08 (0.65) mmol/L. A large proportion of patients (88.8%) had TC < 5.0 mmol/L. However, only 45.8% had TC < 4.0 mmol/L, and 46.5% had LDL-C < 2.0 mmol/L. Although a larger proportion of patients with CHD/AVD + DM reached guideline-recommended lipid levels, only 63.7% of such patients had TC < 4.0 or LDL-C < 2.0 mmol/L, which are the current targets for this subgroup as recommended by NICE. Conclusions: Less than half of UK high-CVD-risk patients receiving atorvastatin monotherapy achieved guideline-recommended treatment targets for TC, and less than two-thirds of patients with CHD/AVD + DM had values below TC (4.0 mmol/L) or LDL-C (2.0 mmol/L) targets. More effective lipid-lowering strategies may be warranted to optimize cholesterol lowering and target attainment in high-risk patients. Limitations of this study include its retrospective, observational nature.

Limitations of real-world treatment with atorvastatin monotherapy for lowering LDL-C in high-risk cardiovascular patients in the US

Background Guidelines endorse statin therapy for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) to recommended levels, in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, if needed, after lifestyle changes. Atorvastatin is a common statin with greater LDL-C lowering efficacy than most other statins; its availability in generic form will likely increase its use. This study assessed attainment of guideline-recommended LDL-C levels in high-risk CVD patients treated with atorvastatin monotherapy. Methods Analyses of two retrospective US cohorts of patients who received a prescription for atorvastatin monotherapy between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010 (index date defined as first prescription date) in the GE Centricity Electronic Medical Record (EMR) (N=10,693) and Humana Medicare (N=16,798) databases. Eligible patients were ≥18 years, diagnosed with coronary heart disease or atherosclerotic vascular disease, with ≥1 LDL-C measurement between 3 months and 1 year postindex date, and continuously enrolled for 1 year prior to and following the index date. Results Of the eligible patients, 21.8%, 29.6%, 29.9%, and 18.7% (GE Centricity EMR) and 25.4%, 32.9%, 27.8%, and 14.0% (Humana Medicare) received 10, 20, 40, and 80 mg doses of atorvastatin, respectively. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) follow-up LDL-C levels were 2.1±0.8 mmol/L (83±30 mg/dL) and 2.3±0.8 mmol/L (88±31 mg/dL) for the GE Centricity EMR and Humana Medicare cohorts, respectively. Regardless of dose, only 28.3%–34.8% of patients had LDL-C levels <1.8 mmol/L (<70 mg/dL), and 72.0%–78.0% achieved LDL-C <2.6 mmol/L (<100 mg/dL) in both cohorts. As many as 41% and 13% of patients had LDL-C levels ≥0.5 mmol/L (≥20 mg/dL) above LDL-C 1.8 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) and 2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL), respectively, in both cohorts; these percentages were generally similar across atorvastatin doses. Conclusion In this real-world US setting, a large number of high-risk CVD patients did not attain guideline-recommended LDL-C levels with atorvastatin monotherapy. More than 65% of the patients had LDL-C levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL), and of these, 30%–40% had LDL-C levels ≥0.5 mmol/L (≥20 mg/dL) above this, regardless of dose. This suggests that more effective lipid-lowering strategies, such as statin uptitration, switching to a higher efficacy statin, and/or combination therapy, may be required to achieve optimal LDL-C lowering in high-risk patients.