BACKGROUND: Physician treatment of cardiovascular risk factors may be affected by specific types of patient comorbidities. OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between discordant comorbidities and LDL-cholesterol management in hypertensive patients not previously treated with lipid-lowering therapy; to determine whether the presence of cardiovascular (concordant) conditions mediates this relationship. DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 1,935 hypertensive primary care patients (men >45 years of age, women >55 years of age) with documented elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and no lipid-lowering therapy at baseline. The outcome was guideline-consistent hyperlipidemia management defined as optimal value on repeat LDL cholesterol testing or initiation of lipid-lowering therapy. Using generalized estimating equations (GEE), we examined the association of concordant and discordant comorbidities with guideline-consistent hyperlipidemia management over a 2-year follow-up period, adjusting for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Guideline-consistent hyperlipidemia management was achieved in 1,236 patients (64%). In the fully adjusted model, each additional discordant condition resulted in a 19% lower adjusted odds ratio of guideline-consistent hyperlipidemia management (p < 0.001) when compared with no discordant conditions. The dampening effect of discordant conditions on guideline-consistent management persisted even in the presence of concordant conditions, but each additional concordant condition was associated with a 37% increase in the adjusted odds of guideline-consistent hyperlipidemia management (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of hypertensive primary care patients, the number of conditions discordant with cardiovascular risk was strongly negatively associated with guideline-consistent hyperlipidemia management even in patients at the highest risk for cardiovascular events and cardiac death.
BACKGROUND: Physician treatment of cardiovascular risk factors may be affected by specific types of patient comorbidities. OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between discordant comorbidities and LDL-cholesterol management in hypertensivepatients not previously treated with lipid-lowering therapy; to determine whether the presence of cardiovascular (concordant) conditions mediates this relationship. DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 1,935 hypertensive primary care patients (men >45 years of age, women >55 years of age) with documented elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and no lipid-lowering therapy at baseline. The outcome was guideline-consistent hyperlipidemia management defined as optimal value on repeat LDL cholesterol testing or initiation of lipid-lowering therapy. Using generalized estimating equations (GEE), we examined the association of concordant and discordant comorbidities with guideline-consistent hyperlipidemia management over a 2-year follow-up period, adjusting for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Guideline-consistent hyperlipidemia management was achieved in 1,236 patients (64%). In the fully adjusted model, each additional discordant condition resulted in a 19% lower adjusted odds ratio of guideline-consistent hyperlipidemia management (p < 0.001) when compared with no discordant conditions. The dampening effect of discordant conditions on guideline-consistent management persisted even in the presence of concordant conditions, but each additional concordant condition was associated with a 37% increase in the adjusted odds of guideline-consistent hyperlipidemia management (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of hypertensive primary care patients, the number of conditions discordant with cardiovascular risk was strongly negatively associated with guideline-consistent hyperlipidemia management even in patients at the highest risk for cardiovascular events and cardiac death.
Authors: Elizabeth A McGlynn; Steven M Asch; John Adams; Joan Keesey; Jennifer Hicks; Alison DeCristofaro; Eve A Kerr Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eve A Kerr; Dylan M Smith; Mary M Hogan; Timothy P Hofer; Sarah L Krein; Martin Bermann; Rodney A Hayward Journal: Med Care Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Paul A Fishman; Michael J Goodman; Mark C Hornbrook; Richard T Meenan; Donald J Bachman; Maureen C O'Keeffe Rosetti Journal: Med Care Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Takahiro Higashi; Paul G Shekelle; David H Solomon; Eric L Knight; Carol Roth; John T Chang; Caren J Kamberg; Catherine H MacLean; Roy T Young; John Adams; David B Reuben; Jerry Avorn; Neil S Wenger Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-05-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Mitchell T Heflin; Eugene Z Oddone; Carl F Pieper; Bruce M Burchett; Harvey Jay Cohen Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Eve A Kerr; Michele Heisler; Sarah L Krein; Mohammed Kabeto; Kenneth M Langa; David Weir; John D Piette Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-07-24 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Cynthia M Boyd; Bruce Leff; Jennifer L Wolff; Qilu Yu; Jing Zhou; Cynthia Rand; Carlos O Weiss Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Courtney A Polenick; Amanda N Leggett; Noah J Webster; Benjamin H Han; Steven H Zarit; John D Piette Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Elizabeth M Magnan; Mari Palta; Heather M Johnson; Christie M Bartels; Jessica R Schumacher; Maureen A Smith Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Courtney A Polenick; Kira S Birditt; Angela Turkelson; Benjamin C Bugajski; Helen C Kales Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Alanna M Chamberlain; Jennifer L St Sauver; Yariv Gerber; Sheila M Manemann; Cynthia M Boyd; Shannon M Dunlay; Walter A Rocca; Lila J Finney Rutten; Ruoxiang Jiang; Susan A Weston; Véronique L Roger Journal: Am J Med Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Joel M Neutel; Michael Eaddy; Orsolya E Lunacsek; Craig Roberts; Linda Chen; Allison J Kean; James H Jackson Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.738