BACKGROUND: The cause of the "treatment-risk paradox" reported for patients with coronary disease is unknown; however, determining the factors that contribute to this paradox is essential to properly design quality improvement interventions. METHODS: Prospective cohort study enrolling consecutive patients with angiographically proved coronary disease between February 1, 2004, and November 30, 2005, in Alberta. RESULTS: One month after an angiogram, statins were being taken by 2436 (62.9%) of 3871 patients (mean age, 64 years). High-risk patients were less likely to be taking statins than lower-risk patients (55.8% vs 63.5%; crude odds ratio [OR], 0.72 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.57-0.92]; risk ratio [RR], 0.88 [95% CI, 0.79-0.97]), but this treatment-risk paradox was completely attenuated by adjusting for exertional capacity and depressive symptoms (OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.75-1.28]; RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.89-1.09]). These results were robust across drug classes: while high-risk patients were less likely to be taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, aspirin, and statins (25.8% vs 32.3%; crude OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.95]; RR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65-0.97]), this association did not persist in the adjusted model (OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.72-1.33] [P = .87]; RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.79-1.20]). CONCLUSIONS: The treatment-risk paradox reported in administrative database analyses is attributable to clinical factors not typically captured in these databases (such as functional capacity and depressive symptoms). Interventions to address the treatment-risk paradox should recognize that patients with reduced functional capacity, depression, or both are at higher risk for underuse of these beneficial therapies and should target physicians and patients.
BACKGROUND: The cause of the "treatment-risk paradox" reported for patients with coronary disease is unknown; however, determining the factors that contribute to this paradox is essential to properly design quality improvement interventions. METHODS: Prospective cohort study enrolling consecutive patients with angiographically proved coronary disease between February 1, 2004, and November 30, 2005, in Alberta. RESULTS: One month after an angiogram, statins were being taken by 2436 (62.9%) of 3871 patients (mean age, 64 years). High-risk patients were less likely to be taking statins than lower-risk patients (55.8% vs 63.5%; crude odds ratio [OR], 0.72 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.57-0.92]; risk ratio [RR], 0.88 [95% CI, 0.79-0.97]), but this treatment-risk paradox was completely attenuated by adjusting for exertional capacity and depressive symptoms (OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.75-1.28]; RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.89-1.09]). These results were robust across drug classes: while high-risk patients were less likely to be taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, aspirin, and statins (25.8% vs 32.3%; crude OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.95]; RR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65-0.97]), this association did not persist in the adjusted model (OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.72-1.33] [P = .87]; RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.79-1.20]). CONCLUSIONS: The treatment-risk paradox reported in administrative database analyses is attributable to clinical factors not typically captured in these databases (such as functional capacity and depressive symptoms). Interventions to address the treatment-risk paradox should recognize that patients with reduced functional capacity, depression, or both are at higher risk for underuse of these beneficial therapies and should target physicians and patients.
Authors: Merril L Knudtson; Colleen M Norris; P Diane Galbraith; Jaro Hubacek; William A Ghali Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Finlay A McAlister; Miriam Fradette; Sumit R Majumdar; Randall Williams; Michelle Graham; James McMeekin; William A Ghali; Ross T Tsuyuki; Merril L Knudtson; Jeremy Grimshaw Journal: CMAJ Date: 2009-11-23 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: S Jedrzkiewicz; S G Goodman; R T Yan; R C Welsh; J Kornder; J Paul DeYoung; G C Wong; B Rose; F R Grondin; R Gallo; W Huang; J M Gore; A T Yan Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Kathleen M Schneider; Mary C Schroeder; Elena Letuchy; Robert B Wallace; Jennifer G Robinson; John M Brooks Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Mohammed Qintar; Kim G Smolderen; Paul S Chan; Kensey L Gosch; Philip G Jones; Donna M Buchanan; Saket Girotra; John A Spertus Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Supriya Shore; Philip G Jones; Thomas M Maddox; Steven M Bradley; Joshua M Stolker; Suzanne V Arnold; Susmita Parashar; Pamela Peterson; Deepak L Bhatt; John Spertus; P Michael Ho Journal: Heart Date: 2015-03-23 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Finlay A McAlister; Sumit R Majumdar; Rajdeep S Padwal; Miriam Fradette; Ann Thompson; Ross Tsuyuki; Steven A Grover; Naeem Dean; Ashfaq Shuaib Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2010-04-12 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Eric D Peterson; John A Spertus; David J Cohen; Mark A Hlatky; Alan S Go; Barbara G Vickrey; Jeffrey L Saver; Patricia C Hinton Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2009-11