Search

The objective of this analysis was to compare the cost-effectiveness of clinic-based methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) and office-based buprenorphine maintenance therapy (BMT) from the perspective of third-party payers in the United States. The authors used a Markov cost-effectiveness model. A hypothetical cohort of 1000 adult, opioid-dependent patients was modeled over a 1-year time horizon. Patients were allowed to transition between the health states of in opioid dependence treatment and either abusing or not abusing opioids, or to have dropped out of treatment. Probabilities were derived from randomized clinical trials comparing methadone and buprenorphine. Costs included drug and administration, clinic visits, and therapy sessions. Effectiveness outcomes examined were (1) retention in the treatment program and (2) opioid abuse–free weeks. For retention in treatment at 1 year, MMT was more costly ($4,613 vs. $4,155) and more effective (20.3% vs. 15.9%) than BMT, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $10,437 per additional patient retained in treatment. MMT was also more effective than BMT in terms of opioid abuse–free weeks (9.2 vs. 9.1 weeks), resulting in an ICER of $8,515 per opioid abuse–free week gained. One-way sensitivity analyses found costs per week of MMT to have the largest impact on the retention-in-treatment outcome, whereas the probability of dropping out with MMT had the greatest impact on opioid abuse–free weeks. The authors conclude that MMT is cost-effective compared with BMT for the treatment of patients with opioid dependence. However, the treatment of substance abuse is complex, and decision makers should also consider individual patient characteristics when making coverage decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Antihypertensive medication use patterns have likely been influenced by changing costs and accessibility over the past 3 decades. This study examines the relationships between patent exclusivity loss, medication costs, and national health policies on antihypertensive medication use., Methods: Using 1996 to 2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data of US adults with hypertension taking at least 1 antihypertensive medication, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis. We explored the associations between patent exclusivity loss, per-pill costs, and Medicare Part D enactment on medication use over time, focusing on the most commonly used medications (lisinopril, amlodipine, losartan, hydrochlorothiazide, and metoprolol)., Results: The unweighted sample comprised 50 095 US adults (mean age, 62 years; 53% female). The survey-weighted number of adults taking antihypertensive medications increased from 22 million (95% CIs, 20-23 million) to 55 million (95% CI, 51-60 million) between 1996 and 2021. Loss of patent exclusivity led to increased medication fills, notably for lisinopril, amlodipine, and losartan, which all exhibited within-class dominance. However, per-pill cost decreases coinciding with Medicare Part D did not increase the number of individuals treated or the use of specific antihypertensive medications or classes., Conclusions: The increase in antihypertensive medication use over the past decades highlights the significant impact of loss of patent exclusivity on the uptake in the use of specific medications. These findings underscore the complexity of factors influencing medication use, beyond cost reductions alone, and suggest that policies need to consider multiple facets to effectively improve antihypertensive medication accessibility and utilization., Competing Interests: B.K Bellows was supported by K01HL140170 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (Bethesda, MD). I. Hernandez discloses consulting fees from BMS and Pfizer, outside of the submitted work. A.P Bress is supported by R01AG74989, K24AG080168, and R01AG065805 from the National Institute on Aging (Bethesda, MD) and R01HL139837 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (Bethesda, MD). W.C. Cushman has received institutional grants from George Medicines and ReCor Medical. Dr Whelton is an associated editor at Hypertension. George Institute Ventures, the social enterprise arm of The George Institute for Global Health, has received investment to develop fixed-dose combination products containing aspirin, statin, and blood pressure–lowering drugs. George Institute Ventures has submitted patents for low-dose blood pressure combinations, on which Professor Rodgers is listed as one of the inventors. A. Rodgers has served on a Data and Safety Monitoring Board for a trial sponsored by Idorsia. George Institute Ventures Pty Ltd, the social enterprise arm of The George Institute for Global Health (TGIGH), has received investment to develop fixed-dose combination products containing aspirin, statin, and blood pressure–lowering drugs. TGIGH holds and have filed applications for combination products for the treatment of hypertension and diabetes, and Professor Rodgers is listed as one of the inventors (granted: US 10,369,15; US 10,799,487; US 10,322,117; US 11,033,544; US 11,478,462; Pending: US 17/932,982; US 18/446,268; US 17/598,122; US 17/317,614). A. Rodgers is seconded part-time to George Medicines Pty Ltd (GM), a subsidiary of George Institute Ventures. Professor Rodgers does not have a personal financial interest in these patents or products. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: Despite reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and death in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), intensive systolic blood pressure goals have not been adopted in the United States. This study aimed to simulate the potential long-term impact of 4 hypertension management strategies in SPRINT-eligible US adults., Methods and Results: The validated Blood Pressure Control-Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model, a discrete event simulation of hypertension care processes (ie, visit frequency, blood pressure [BP] measurement accuracy, medication intensification, and medication adherence) and CVD outcomes, was populated with 25 000 SPRINT-eligible US adults. Four hypertension management strategies were simulated: (1) usual care targeting BP <140/90 mm Hg (Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure usual care), (2) intensive care per the SPRINT protocol targeting BP <120/90 mm Hg (SPRINT intensive), (3) usual care targeting guideline-recommended BP <130/80 mm Hg (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association usual care), and (4) team-based care added to usual care and targeting BP <130/80 mm Hg. Relative to the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure usual care, among the 18.1 million SPRINT-eligible US adults, an estimated 138 100 total CVD events could be prevented per year with SPRINT intensive, 33 900 with American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association usual care, and 89 100 with team-based care. Compared with the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure usual care, SPRINT intensive care was projected to increase treatment-related serious adverse events by 77 600 per year, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association usual care by 33 300, and team-based care by 27 200., Conclusions: As BP control has declined in recent years, health systems must prioritize hypertension management and invest in effective strategies. Adding team-based care to usual care may be a pragmatic way to manage risk in this high-CVD-risk population.

Background: Single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive products improve blood pressure control and medication adherence among patients with hypertension. It is unknown to what degree commercially available SPC products could be used to target an intensive systolic blood pressure goal of <120 mm Hg., Methods: This cross-sectional analysis included participants randomized to the intensive treatment arm (goal systolic blood pressure <120 mm Hg) of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) using ≥2 antihypertensive medication classes at the 12-month postrandomization visit. Antihypertensive medication data were collected using pill bottle review by research coordinators, and regimens were categorized by the unique combinations of antihypertensive classes. We calculated the proportion of regimens used, which are commercially available as one of the 7 SPC class combinations in the United States as of January 2023., Results: Among the 3833 SPRINT intensive arm participants included (median age, 67.0 years; 35.5% female), participants were using 219 unique antihypertensive regimens. The 7 regimens for which there are class-equivalent SPC products were used by 40.3% of participants. Only 3.2% of all medication class regimens used are available as a class-equivalent SPC product (7/219). There are no SPC products available with 4 or more medication classes, which were used by 1060 participants (27.7%)., Conclusions: Most SPRINT participants in the intensive arm used an antihypertensive medication regimen, which is not commercially available as a class equivalent SPC product. To achieve the SPRINT results in real-world settings, maximize the potential benefit of SPCs, and reduce pill burden, improvements in the product landscape are needed., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov/ct2/show/NCT01206062; Unique identifier: NCT01206062., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Derington has received research funding to her institution from Amarin not related to the current project. Dr Bress has received research support to his institution from Novartis, Amgen, and Amarin not related to the current project. Dr Cushman reports: co-investigator in a ReCOR medical study; research funds to institution from George Medicines. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background Fixed-dose combination (FDC) antihypertensive products improve blood pressure control and adherence among patients with hypertension. It is unknown to what degree commercially available FDC products meet the current hypertension management prescription patterns in the United States. Methods and Results This cross-sectional analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2015 to March 2020 included participants with hypertension taking ≥2 antihypertensive medications (N=2451). After constructing each participant's regimen according to antihypertensive classes used, we estimated the extent to which the 7 class-level FDC regimens available in the United States as of January 2023 would match the regimens used. Among a weighted population of 34.1 million US adults (mean age, 66.0 years; 52.8% women; 69.1% non-Hispanic White race and ethnicity), the proportions using 2, 3, 4, and ≥5 antihypertensive classes were 60.6%, 28.2%, 9.1%, and 1.6%, respectively. The 7 FDC regimens were among 189 total regimens used (3.7%), and 39.2% of the population used one of the FDC regimens (95% CI, 35.5%-43.0%; 13.4 million US adults); 60.8% of the population (95% CI, 57.0%-64.5%; 20.7 million US adults) were using a regimen not available as a class-equivalent FDC product. Conclusions Three in 5 US adults with hypertension taking ≥2 antihypertensive classes are using a regimen that is not commercially available as a class-equivalent FDC product as of January 2023. To maximize the potential benefit of FDCs to improve medication adherence (and thus blood pressure control) among patients taking multiple antihypertensive medications, use of FDC-compatible regimens and improvements in the product landscape are needed.

Importance: Intensive vs standard treatment to lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduces risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia; however, the magnitude of cognitive benefit likely varies among patients., Objective: To estimate the magnitude of cognitive benefit of intensive vs standard systolic BP (SBP) treatment., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this ad hoc secondary analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), 9361 randomized clinical trial participants 50 years or older with high cardiovascular risk but without a history of diabetes, stroke, or dementia were followed up. The SPRINT trial was conducted between November 1, 2010, and August 31, 2016, and the present analysis was completed on October 31, 2022., Intervention: Systolic blood pressure treatment to an intensive (<120 mm Hg) vs standard (<140 mm Hg) target., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of adjudicated probable dementia or amnestic MCI., Results: A total of 7918 SPRINT participants were included in the analysis; 3989 were in the intensive treatment group (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [9.2] years; 2570 [64.4%] men; 1212 [30.4%] non-Hispanic Black) and 3929 were in the standard treatment group (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [9.4] years; 2570 [65.4%] men; 1249 [31.8%] non-Hispanic Black). Over a median follow-up of 4.13 (IQR, 3.50-5.88) years, there were 765 and 828 primary outcome events in the intensive treatment group and standard treatment group, respectively. Older age (hazard ratio [HR] per 1 SD, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.78-1.96]), Medicare enrollment (HR per 1 SD, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.35-1.49]), and higher baseline serum creatinine level (HR per 1 SD, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.19-1.29]) were associated with higher risk of the primary outcome, while better baseline cognitive functioning (HR per 1 SD, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.41-0.44]) and active employment status (HR per 1 SD, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.42-0.46]) were associated with lower risk of the primary outcome. Risk of the primary outcome by treatment goal was estimated accurately based on similar projected and observed absolute risk differences (C statistic = 0.79). Higher baseline risk for the primary outcome was associated with greater benefit (ie, larger absolute reduction of probable dementia or amnestic MCI) of intensive vs standard treatment across the full range of estimated baseline risk., Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of the SPRINT trial, participants with higher baseline projected risk of probable dementia or amnestic MCI gained greater absolute cognitive benefit from intensive vs standard SBP treatment in a monotonic fashion., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Background: The PRedicting Out-of-OFfice Blood Pressure (PROOF-BP) algorithm accurately predicted out-of-office blood pressure (BP) among adults with suspected high BP in the United Kingdom and Canada. We tested the accuracy of PROOF-BP in a diverse US population and evaluated a newly developed US-specific algorithm (PROOF-BP-US)., Methods: Adults with ≥2 office BP readings and ≥10 awake BP readings on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring from 4 pooled US studies were included. We compared mean awake BP with predicted out-of-office BP using PROOF-BP and PROOF-BP-US. Our primary outcomes were hypertensive out-of-office systolic BP (SBP) ≥130 mm Hg and diastolic BP (DBP) ≥80 mm Hg., Results: We included 3,058 adults, mean (SD) age was 52.0 (11.9) years, 38% were male, and 54% were Black. The area under the receiver-operator characteristic (AUROC) curve (95% confidence interval) for hypertensive out-of-office SBP was 0.81 (0.79-0.82) and DBP was 0.76 (0.74-0.78) for PROOF-BP. For PROOF-BP-US, the AUROC curve for hypertensive out-of-office SBP was 0.82 (0.81-0.83) and for DBP was 0.81 (0.79-0.83). The optimal predicted out-of-office BP ranges for out-of-office BP measurement referral were 120-134/75-84 mm Hg for PROOF-BP and 125-134/75-84 mm Hg for PROOF-BP-US. The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association BP guideline (referral range 130-159/80-99 mm Hg) would refer 93.1% of adults not taking antihypertensive medications with office BP ≥130/80 mm Hg in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for out-of-office BP measurement, compared with 53.1% using PROOF-BP and 46.8% using PROOF-BP-US., Conclusions: PROOF-BP and PROOF-BP-US accurately predicted out-of-office hypertension in a diverse sample of US adults., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd.)

Background: Treating hypertension with antihypertensive medications combinations, rather than one medication (ie, monotherapy), is underused in the United States, particularly in certain race/ethnic groups. Identifying factors associated with monotherapy use despite uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) overall and within race/ethnic groups may elucidate intervention targets in under-treated populations., Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES; 2013-2014 through 2017-2018). We included participants age ≥20 years with hypertension, taking at least one antihypertensive medication, and uncontrolled BP (systolic BP [SBP] ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic BP [DBP] ≥ 90 mmHg). Demographic, clinical, and healthcare-access factors associated with antihypertensive monotherapy were determined using multivariable-adjusted Poisson regression., Results: Among 1,597 participants with hypertension and uncontrolled BP, age- and sex- adjusted prevalence of monotherapy was 42.6% overall, 45.4% among non-Hispanic White, 31.9% among non-Hispanic Black, 39.6% among Hispanic, and 50.9% among non-Hispanic Asian adults. Overall, higher SBP was associated with higher monotherapy use, while older age, having a healthcare visit in the previous year, higher body mass index, and having heart failure were associated with lower monotherapy use., Conclusion: Clinical and healthcare-access factors, including a healthcare visit within the previous year and co-morbid conditions were associated with a higher likelihood of combination antihypertensive therapy., Competing Interests: Disclosure None, (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background Intensive systolic blood pressure treatment (<120 mm Hg) in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) improved survival compared with standard treatment (<140 mm Hg) over a median follow-up of 3.3 years. We projected life expectancy after observed follow-up in SPRINT using SPRINT-eligible participants in the NHLBI-PCS (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Pooled Cohorts Study). Methods and Results We used propensity scores to weight SPRINT-eligible NHLBI-PCS participants to resemble SPRINT participants. In SPRINT participants, we estimated in-trial survival (<4 years) using a time-based flexible parametric survival model. In SPRINT-eligible NHLBI-PCS participants, we estimated posttrial survival (≥4 years) using an age-based flexible parametric survival model and applied the formula to SPRINT participants to predict posttrial survival. We projected overall life expectancy for each SPRINT participant and compared it to parametric regression (eg, Gompertz) projections based on SPRINT data alone. We included 8584 SPRINT and 10 593 SPRINT-eligible NHLBI-PCS participants. After propensity weighting, mean (SD) age was 67.9 (9.4) and 68.2 (8.8) years, and 35.5% and 37.6% were women in SPRINT and NHLBI-PCS, respectively. Using the NHLBI-PCS-based method, projected mean life expectancy from randomization was 21.0 (7.4) years with intensive and 19.1 (7.2) years with standard treatment. Using the Gompertz regression, life expectancy was 11.2 (2.3) years with intensive and 10.5 (2.2) years with standard treatment. Conclusions Combining SPRINT and NHLBI-PCS observed data likely offers a more realistic estimate of life expectancy than parametrically extrapolating SPRINT data alone. These results offer insight into the potential long-term effectiveness of intensive SBP goals.

Importance: High blood pressure (BP) during sleep (asleep blood pressure) is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, but a national prevalence estimate of masked asleep hypertension (high BP while sleeping but without high BP measured in the clinic [clinic BP]) for the United States is lacking., Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of masked asleep hypertension among US adults by using BP thresholds from the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC7) and the 2017 American College of Cardiology-American Heart Association (ACC-AHA) BP guidelines., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort analysis pooled data from 3000 participants in 4 US population-based studies that conducted 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and 17 969 participants in the 2011-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) without ABPM. Masked asleep hypertension status in NHANES was imputed using a 2-stage multiple imputation process. Data were collected from 2000 to 2016 and analyzed from March 4, 2019, to June 29, 2020., Main Outcomes and Measures: High clinic BP was defined as clinic systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP) of at least 140/90 mm Hg using JNC7 and at least 130/80 mm Hg using 2017 ACC-AHA guidelines. High asleep BP was defined as mean asleep SBP/DBP of at least 120/70 mm Hg for JNC7 and at least 110/65 mm Hg for the 2017 ACC-AHA guidelines. Masked asleep hypertension was defined as high asleep BP without high clinic BP., Results: For the 3000 pooled cohort participants, the mean (SD) age was 52.0 (12.0) years, and 62.6% were women. For the 17 969 NHANES participants, the mean (SD) age was 46.7 (17.5) years, and 51.8% (weighted) were women. The estimated prevalence of masked asleep hypertension among US adults was 18.8% (95% CI, 16.7%-20.8%; 44.4 million US adults) using the JNC7 guideline and 22.7% (95% CI, 20.6%-24.8%; 53.7 million US adults) using the 2017 ACC-AHA guideline criteria. The prevalence of masked asleep hypertension was higher among older adults (aged ≥65 years, 24.4% [95% CI, 20.7%-28.0%]), men (27.0% [95% CI, 24.1%-29.9%]), non-Hispanic Black individuals (28.7% [95% CI, 25.4%-32.0%]), those who were taking antihypertensives (24.4% [95% CI, 21.1%-27.8%]), those who had masked daytime hypertension (44.7% [95% CI, 40.1%-49.3%]), and those with diabetes (27.6% [95% CI, 23.5%-31.8%]), obesity (24.3% [95% CI, 21.8%-26.9%]), or chronic kidney disease (21.5% [95% CI, 17.3%-25.6%]) using the 2017 ACC-AHA guideline. An estimated 11.9% of US adults (28.2 million) had isolated masked asleep hypertension (masked asleep hypertension but without high awake BP) using JNC7 guideline criteria, as did an estimated 13.3% (31.5 million) using 2017 ACC-AHA guideline criteria., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the prevalence of masked asleep hypertension is high among US adults. Data are needed on the cardiovascular risk reduction benefits of treating asleep hypertension.

Background Few adults at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events use a PCSK9i (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor). Methods and Results Using data from the US Veterans Health Administration, we identified veterans who initiated a PCSK9i between January 2018 and December 2019, matched 1:4 to veterans who did not initiate this medication over this time period (case-cohort study). Two cohorts of veterans were analyzed: (1) atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, with a most recent low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥70 mg/dL; and (2) severe hypercholesterolemia (ie, familial hypercholesterolemia or any prior LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL, with most recent LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL). Conditional logistic regression was used to analyze factors associated with PCSK9i initiation, adjusting for all factors, simultaneously. There were 2394 initiators and 9576 noninitiators in the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease cohort (median LDL-C, 141 and 96 mg/dL, respectively; P <0.001). Factors associated with a higher likelihood of PCSK9i initiation included age 65 to <75 versus <65 years, highest versus lowest quartile of median area-level income, familial hypercholesterolemia, former statin use, and current ezetimibe use. PCSK9i initiation was lower among veterans of a race/ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White. There were 245 initiators and 980 noninitiators in the severe hypercholesterolemia cohort (median LDL-C, 183 and 151 mg/dL, respectively; P <0.001). Age ≥75 versus <65 years, history of chronic kidney disease, former statin use, and current ezetimibe use were associated with a higher likelihood of PCSK9i initiation. Conclusions Several patient-level factors, including age, sex, and race/ethnicity, were significantly associated with PCSK9i initiation, suggesting an unmet treatment need in several patient groups.

Importance: In December 2013, the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC8) published a recommendation that non-Black adults initiate antihypertensive medication with a thiazide-type diuretic, calcium channel blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), whereas Black adults initiate treatment with a thiazide-type diuretic or calcium channel blocker. β-Blockers were not recommended as first-line therapy., Objective: To assess changes in antihypertensive medication classes initiated by race/ethnicity from before to after publication of the JNC8 panel member report., Design, Setting, and Participants: This serial cross-sectional analysis assessed a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years or older who initiated antihypertensive medication between 2011 and 2018, were Black (n = 3303 [8.0%]), White (n = 34 943 [84.5%]), or of other (n = 3094 [7.5%]) race/ethnicity, and did not have compelling indications for specific antihypertensive medication classes., Exposures: Calendar year and period after vs before publication of the JNC8 panel member report., Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of beneficiaries initiating ACEIs or ARBs and, separately, β-blockers vs other antihypertensive medication classes., Results: In total, 41 340 Medicare beneficiaries (65% women; mean [SD] age, 75.7 [7.6] years) of Black, White, or other races/ethnicities initiated antihypertensive medication and met the inclusion criteria for the present study. In 2011, 25.2% of Black beneficiaries initiating antihypertensive monotherapy did so with an ACEI or ARB compared with 23.7% in 2018 (P = .47 for trend). Among beneficiaries initiating monotherapy, the proportion filling a β-blocker was 20.1% in 2011 and 15.4% in 2018 for White beneficiaries (P < .001 for trend), 14.2% in 2011 and 11.1% in 2018 for Black beneficiaries (P = .08 for trend), and 11.3% in 2011 and 15.0% in 2018 for beneficiaries of other race/ethnicity (P = .40 for trend). After multivariable adjustment and among beneficiaries initiating monotherapy, there was no evidence of a change in the proportion filling an ACEI or ARB before to after publication of the JNC8 panel member report overall (prevalence ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03) or in Black vs White beneficiaries (prevalence ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83-1.12; P = .60 for interaction). Among beneficiaries initiating monotherapy, the proportion filling a β-blocker decreased from before to after publication of the JNC8 panel member report (prevalence ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.93) with no differences across race/ethnicity groups (P > .10 for interaction)., Conclusions and Relevance: A substantial proportion of older US adults who initiate antihypertensive medication do so with non-guideline-recommended classes of medication.

Blood pressure (BP) control rates among US adults taking antihypertensive medication have not increased over the past decade. Many adults require 2 or more classes of antihypertensive medication to achieve guideline-recommended BP goals, but the proportion of US adults taking antihypertensive medication monotherapy, versus combination therapy, has not been quantified using contemporary data. We analyzed data from 2005 to 2008, 2009 to 2012, and 2013 to 2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys to determine trends in monotherapy and combinations of antihypertensive medication classes among US adults age ≥20 years with hypertension taking antihypertensive medication (n=7837). The proportion of US adults taking antihypertensive medication with uncontrolled BP (ie, systolic BP ≥140 or diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg) was 32.3%, 30.2%, and 31.0% in 2005 to 2008, 2009 to 2012, and 2013 to 2016, respectively ( P trend =0.37). Between 2005 to 2008 and 2013 to 2016, there was no evidence of changes in the proportions of US adults taking antihypertensive monotherapy (39.5%-40.4%, P trend =0.67), dual-therapy (37.9%-38.3%, P trend =0.75), triple-therapy (17.6%-16.5%, P trend =0.36), or quadruple-therapy (4.4%-4.3%, P trend =0.93). Between 2005 to 2008 and 2013 to 2016, there was no evidence of changes in the proportions of US adults with uncontrolled BP taking antihypertensive monotherapy (39.3%-40.6%, P trend =0.78). A high proportion of US adults with hypertension, including those with uncontrolled BP, are taking one antihypertensive medication class. Increasing the use of dual- and triple-therapy antihypertensive medication regimens may restore the upward trend in BP control rates among US adults.

Background: US guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), who tolerate an ACEI (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) or ARB (angiotensin II receptor blocker), be switched to sacubitril/valsartan to reduce morbidity and mortality. We compared characteristics and healthcare utilization between Veterans with HFrEF who were switched to sacubitril/valsartan versus maintained on an ACEI or ARB., Methods: retrospective cohort study of treated HFrEF (July 2015-June 2017) using Veterans Affairs data. The index date was the first fill for sacubitril/valsartan and if none, for an ACEI or ARB. Treated HFrEF was defined by (1) left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, (2) ≥1 in/outpatient HF encounter, and (3) ≥1 ACEI or ARB fill, all within 1-year preindex. Poisson regression models were used to compare baseline characteristics and 1:1 propensity score-matched adjusted 4-month follow-up healthcare utilization between sacubitril/valsartan switchers and ACEI or ARB maintainers., Results: Switchers (1612; 4.2%) were less likely than maintainers (37 065; 95.8%) to have a history of myocardial infarction or hypertension, and more likely to be black, have a lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and higher preindex healthcare utilization. Switchers were less likely to experience follow-up all-cause hospitalizations (11.2% versus 14.0%; risk ratio 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65-0.98], P value 0.035)., Conclusions: Few Veterans with treated HFrEF were switched to sacubitril/valsartan within the first 2 years of Food and Drug Administration approval. Sacubitril/valsartan use was associated with a lower risk for all-cause hospitalizations at 4 months follow-up. Reasons for lack of guideline-recommended sacubitril/valsartan initiation warrant investigation and may reveal opportunities for HFrEF care optimization.

Background: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Million Hearts initiative includes an ambitious ≥80% blood pressure control goal in US adults with hypertension by 2022. We used the validated Blood Pressure Control Model to quantify changes in clinic-based hypertension management processes needed to attain ≥80% blood pressure control., Methods and Results: The Blood Pressure Control Model simulates patient blood pressures weekly using 3 key modifiable hypertension management processes: office visit frequency, clinician treatment intensification given uncontrolled blood pressure, and continued antihypertensive medication use (medication adherence rate). We compared blood pressure control rates (using the Seventh Joint National Committee on hypertension targets) achieved over 4 years between usual care and the best-observed values for management processes identified from the literature (1-week return visit interval, 20%-44% intensification rate, and 76% adherence rate). We determined the management process values needed to achieve ≥80% blood pressure control in US adults. In adults with uncontrolled blood pressure, usual care achieved 45.6% control (95% uncertainty interval, 39.6%-52.5%) and literature-based best-observed values achieved 79.7% control (95% uncertainty interval, 79.3%-80.1%) over 4 years. Increasing treatment intensification rates to 62% of office visits with an uncontrolled blood pressure resulted in ≥80% blood pressure control, even when the return visit interval and adherence remained at usual care values. Improving to best-observed values for all 3 management processes would achieve 78.1% blood pressure control in the overall US population with hypertension, approaching the ≥80% Million Hearts 2022 goal., Conclusions: Achieving the Million Hearts blood pressure control goal by 2022 will require simultaneously increasing visit frequency, overcoming therapeutic inertia, and improving patient medication adherence. As the relative importance of each of these 3 processes will depend on local characteristics, simulation models like the Blood Pressure Control Model can help local healthcare systems tailor strategies to reach local and national benchmarks.

Background PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitors effectively lower LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol and have been shown to reduce cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients. We used real-world electronic health record data to characterize use of PCSK9 inhibitors, in addition to standard therapies, according to cardiovascular risk status. Methods and Results Data were obtained from 18 health systems with data marts within the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) using a common data model. Participating sites identified >17.5 million adults, of whom 3.6 million met study criteria. Patients were categorized into 3 groups: (1) dyslipidemia, (2) untreated LDL ≥130 mg/dL, and (3) coronary artery disease or coronary heart disease. Demographics, comorbidities, estimated 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk, and lipid-lowering pharmacotherapies were summarized for each group. Participants' average age was 62 years, 50% were female, and 11% were black. LDL cholesterol ranged from 85 to 151 mg/dL. Among patients in groups 1 and 3, 54% received standard lipid-lowering therapies and a PCSK9 inhibitor was prescribed in <1%. PCSK9 inhibitor prescribing was greatest for patients with coronary artery disease or coronary heart disease and, although prescribing increased during the study period, overall PCSK9 inhibitor prescribing was low. Conclusions We successfully used electronic health record data from 18 PCORnet data marts to identify >3.6 million patients meeting criteria for 3 patient groups. Approximately half of patients had been prescribed lipid-lowering medication, but <1% were prescribed PCSK9 inhibitors. PCSK9 inhibitor prescribing increased over time for patients with coronary artery disease or coronary heart disease but not for those with dyslipidemia.

Real-world outcomes in patients with chronic stable angina treated with ranolazine and other antianginal medications as second- or third-line therapy are limited. In a historical cohort study of veterans with chronic stable angina, we compared time with coronary revascularization procedures, hospitalizations, and 1-year healthcare costs between new-users of ranolazine versus conventional antianginals (i.e., calcium channel blockers, β blockers, or long-acting nitrates) as second- or third-line. Weighted regression models calculated adjusted hazard ratios (HR) at up to 8-year follow-up, and adjusted incremental costs in the first year. Weighted groups comprised 4,699 ranolazine users and 31,815 conventional antianginal users. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) occurred more often in ranolazine users compared with conventional antianginal users (HR 1.16; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.08 to 1.25, p <0.001), and coronary artery bypass grafting occurred less often (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00, p <0.046). All-cause and atrial fibrillation (AF) hospitalizations were less common with ranolazine users compared with conventional users (all-cause: HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.90 to 0.99, p <0.010; AF:HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.82, p <0.001), and acute coronary syndrome was more common (HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.27, p <0.042). Adjusted 1-year costs were $24,517 in ranolazine users and $24,798 in conventional users (difference, $-280; 95% CI $-1,742 to $1,181, p = 0.71). In conclusion, ranolazine users had lower rates of coronary artery bypass grafting and all-cause and AF hospitalizations, but higher rates of percutaneous coronary intervention and hospitalizations due to acute coronary syndrome compared with conventional antianginal users. Healthcare costs were similar between ranolazine and conventional antianginal users., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)