OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the prescribing patterns of medications quantified by the performance measures for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND: Current performance measures for AMI are designed to improve quality by quantifying the use of evidence-based treatments. However, these measures only assess medication prescription. Whether patients receive optimal dosing of secondary prevention medications at the time of and after discharge after AMI is unknown. METHODS: We assessed treatment doses of beta-blockers, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) at discharge and 12 months after AMI among 6,748 patients from 31 hospitals enrolled in 2 U.S. registries (2003 to 2008). Prescribed doses were categorized as none, low (<50% target [defined from seminal clinical trials]), moderate (50% to 74% target), or goal (≥ 75% target). Patients with contraindications were excluded from analyses for that medication. RESULTS: Most eligible patients (>87%) were prescribed some dose of each medication at discharge, although only 1 in 3 patients were prescribed these medications at goal doses. Of patients not discharged on goal doses, up-titration during follow-up occurred infrequently (approximately 25% of patients for each medication). At 12 months, goal doses of beta-blockers, statins, and ACEI/ARBs were achieved in only 12%, 26%, and 32% of eligible patients, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, prescription of goal dose at discharge was strongly associated with being at goal dose at follow-up: beta-blockers, adjusted odds ratio (OR): 6.08 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.70 to 10.01); statins, adjusted OR: 8.22 (95% CI: 6.20 to 10.90); ACEI/ARBs, adjusted OR: 5.80 (95% CI: 2.56 to 13.16); p < 0.001 for each. CONCLUSIONS: Although nearly all patients after an AMI are discharged on appropriate secondary prevention medications, dose increases occur infrequently, and most patients are prescribed doses below those with proven efficacy in clinical trials. Integration of dose intensity into performance measures might help improve the use of optimal medical therapy after AMI.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the prescribing patterns of medications quantified by the performance measures for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND: Current performance measures for AMI are designed to improve quality by quantifying the use of evidence-based treatments. However, these measures only assess medication prescription. Whether patients receive optimal dosing of secondary prevention medications at the time of and after discharge after AMI is unknown. METHODS: We assessed treatment doses of beta-blockers, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) at discharge and 12 months after AMI among 6,748 patients from 31 hospitals enrolled in 2 U.S. registries (2003 to 2008). Prescribed doses were categorized as none, low (<50% target [defined from seminal clinical trials]), moderate (50% to 74% target), or goal (≥ 75% target). Patients with contraindications were excluded from analyses for that medication. RESULTS: Most eligible patients (>87%) were prescribed some dose of each medication at discharge, although only 1 in 3 patients were prescribed these medications at goal doses. Of patients not discharged on goal doses, up-titration during follow-up occurred infrequently (approximately 25% of patients for each medication). At 12 months, goal doses of beta-blockers, statins, and ACEI/ARBs were achieved in only 12%, 26%, and 32% of eligible patients, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, prescription of goal dose at discharge was strongly associated with being at goal dose at follow-up: beta-blockers, adjusted odds ratio (OR): 6.08 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.70 to 10.01); statins, adjusted OR: 8.22 (95% CI: 6.20 to 10.90); ACEI/ARBs, adjusted OR: 5.80 (95% CI: 2.56 to 13.16); p < 0.001 for each. CONCLUSIONS: Although nearly all patients after an AMI are discharged on appropriate secondary prevention medications, dose increases occur infrequently, and most patients are prescribed doses below those with proven efficacy in clinical trials. Integration of dose intensity into performance measures might help improve the use of optimal medical therapy after AMI.
Authors: L S Phillips; W T Branch; C B Cook; J P Doyle; I M El-Kebbi; D L Gallina; C D Miller; D C Ziemer; C S Barnes Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2001-11-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: M Packer; P A Poole-Wilson; P W Armstrong; J G Cleland; J D Horowitz; B M Massie; L Rydén; K Thygesen; B F Uretsky Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-12-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: James A de Lemos; Michael A Blazing; Stephen D Wiviott; Eldrin F Lewis; Keith A A Fox; Harvey D White; Jean-Lucien Rouleau; Terje R Pedersen; Laura H Gardner; Robin Mukherjee; Karen E Ramsey; Joanne Palmisano; David W Bilheimer; Marc A Pfeffer; Robert M Califf; Eugene Braunwald Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-08-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Christopher P Cannon; Eugene Braunwald; Carolyn H McCabe; Daniel J Rader; Jean L Rouleau; Rene Belder; Steven V Joyal; Karen A Hill; Marc A Pfeffer; Allan M Skene Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-03-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kim A Eagle; Michael J Lim; Omar H Dabbous; Karen S Pieper; Robert J Goldberg; Frans Van de Werf; Shaun G Goodman; Christopher B Granger; P Gabriel Steg; Joel M Gore; Andrzej Budaj; Alvaro Avezum; Marcus D Flather; Keith A A Fox Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-06-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: M R Bristow; J B O'Connell; E M Gilbert; W J French; G Leatherman; N E Kantrowitz; J Orie; M L Smucker; G Marshall; P Kelly Journal: Circulation Date: 1994-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Taku Inohara; Pratik Manandhar; Andrzej S Kosinski; Roland A Matsouaka; Shun Kohsaka; Robert J Mentz; Vinod H Thourani; John D Carroll; Ajay J Kirtane; Joseph E Bavaria; David J Cohen; Todd L Kiefer; Jeffrey G Gaca; Samir R Kapadia; Eric D Peterson; Sreekanth Vemulapalli Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Michael L O'Byrne; Andrew C Glatz; Lihai Song; Heather M Griffis; Marisa E Millenson; Matthew J Gillespie; Yoav Dori; Aaron G DeWitt; Christopher E Mascio; Jonathan J Rome Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-11-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ann Marie Navar; Matthew T Roe; Jennifer A White; Christopher P Cannon; Yuliya Lokhnygina; L Kristin Newby; Robert P Giugliano; Andrew M Tershakovec; Eugene Braunwald; Robert M Califf; Michael A Blazing Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2019-01
Authors: Charles D Resor; Ashwin Nathan; Dean J Kereiakes; Robert W Yeh; Joseph M Massaro; Donald E Cutlip; P Gabriel Steg; Wen-Hua Hsieh; Laura Mauri Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jeffrey J Goldberger; Robert O Bonow; Michael Cuffe; Lei Liu; Yves Rosenberg; Prediman K Shah; Sidney C Smith; Haris Subačius Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 24.094