Salim S Virani1, LeChauncy D Woodard, Julia M Akeroyd, David J Ramsey, Christie M Ballantyne, Laura A Petersen. 1. Health Policy, Quality and Informatics Program, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center Health Services Research and Development Center for Innovations, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; Section of Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; Section of Cardiology, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas; Section of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houstona, Texas; Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention, Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recent cholesterol guideline recommends high-intensity statins in cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients. High-intensity statins are associated with more frequent side effects. Therefore, it may be of concern that these recommendations might reduce statin adherence. HYPOTHESIS: High-intensity statins are associated with lower adherence compared with low- to moderate-intensity statins. METHODS: In a national database of 972,532 CVD patients from the Veterans Health Administration, we identified patients receiving statins between October 1, 2010, and September 30, 2011. We assessed statin adherence by calculating proportion of days covered (PDC) and determined whether high-intensity statin therapy was independently associated with a lower PDC. RESULTS: Statins were prescribed in 629,005 (64.7%). Of those, 229,437 (36.5%) received high-intensity statins. Mean PDC (0.87 vs 0.86, P < 0.0001) and patients with PDC ≥ 0.80 (76.3% vs 74.2%, P < 0.0001) were slightly higher for those receiving low- to moderate-intensity compared with high-intensity statins. In adjusted analyses, high-intensity statin use was associated with a significant but modest PDC reduction compared with low- to moderate-intensity statin use, whether PDC was assessed as a continuous (β-coefficient: -0.008, P < 0.0001) or categorical (PDC ≥ 0.80 [odds ratio: 0.94, 95% confidence interval: 0.93-0.96]) measure of statin adherence. CONCLUSIONS: An approach of high-intensity statin therapy will lead to a significant practice change, as the majority of CVD patients are not on high-intensity therapy. However, this change may be associated with a very modest reduction in statin adherence compared with low- to moderate-intensity therapy that is unlikely to be of clinical significance.
BACKGROUND: The recent cholesterol guideline recommends high-intensity statins in cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients. High-intensity statins are associated with more frequent side effects. Therefore, it may be of concern that these recommendations might reduce statin adherence. HYPOTHESIS: High-intensity statins are associated with lower adherence compared with low- to moderate-intensity statins. METHODS: In a national database of 972,532 CVD patients from the Veterans Health Administration, we identified patients receiving statins between October 1, 2010, and September 30, 2011. We assessed statin adherence by calculating proportion of days covered (PDC) and determined whether high-intensity statin therapy was independently associated with a lower PDC. RESULTS: Statins were prescribed in 629,005 (64.7%). Of those, 229,437 (36.5%) received high-intensity statins. Mean PDC (0.87 vs 0.86, P < 0.0001) and patients with PDC ≥ 0.80 (76.3% vs 74.2%, P < 0.0001) were slightly higher for those receiving low- to moderate-intensity compared with high-intensity statins. In adjusted analyses, high-intensity statin use was associated with a significant but modest PDC reduction compared with low- to moderate-intensity statin use, whether PDC was assessed as a continuous (β-coefficient: -0.008, P < 0.0001) or categorical (PDC ≥ 0.80 [odds ratio: 0.94, 95% confidence interval: 0.93-0.96]) measure of statin adherence. CONCLUSIONS: An approach of high-intensity statin therapy will lead to a significant practice change, as the majority of CVD patients are not on high-intensity therapy. However, this change may be associated with a very modest reduction in statin adherence compared with low- to moderate-intensity therapy that is unlikely to be of clinical significance.
Authors: Yashashwi Pokharel; Julia M Akeroyd; David J Ramsey; Ravi S Hira; Vijay Nambi; Tina Shah; LeChauncy D Woodard; David E Winchester; Christie M Ballantyne; Laura A Petersen; Salim S Virani Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Hasan Rehman; Julia M Akeroyd; David Ramsey; Sarah T Ahmed; Anwar T Merchant; Sankar D Navaneethan; Laura A Petersen; Salim S Virani Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2017-08-25 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Yashashwi Pokharel; Fengming Tang; Philip G Jones; Vijay Nambi; Vera A Bittner; Ravi S Hira; Khurram Nasir; Paul S Chan; Thomas M Maddox; William J Oetgen; Paul A Heidenreich; William B Borden; John A Spertus; Laura A Petersen; Christie M Ballantyne; Salim S Virani Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Qing Huang; Michael Grabner; Robert J Sanchez; Vincent J Willey; Mark J Cziraky; Swetha R Palli; Thomas P Power Journal: Am Health Drug Benefits Date: 2016-11
Authors: Dylan L Steen; Irfan Khan; Laura Becker; JoAnne M Foody; Katherine Gorcyca; Robert J Sanchez; Robert P Giugliano Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2016-12-27 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Aisha Vadhariya; Marc L Fleming; Michael L Johnson; E James Essien; Omar Serna; Tara Esse; Jeannie Choi; Susan H Boklage; Susan M Abughosh Journal: Am Health Drug Benefits Date: 2019 Jun-Jul
Authors: Greer A Burkholder; Paul Muntner; Hong Zhao; Michael J Mugavero; E Turner Overton; Meredith Kilgore; Daniel R Drozd; Heidi M Crane; Richard D Moore; Wm Christopher Mathews; Elvin Geng; Stephen Boswell; Michelle Floris-Moore; Robert S Rosenson Journal: J Clin Lipidol Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 5.365