Statin Use and Its Facility-Level Variation in Patients With Diabetes: Insight From the Veterans Affairs National Database

Background: The 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol guideline recommends high-intensity statin therapy in patients 75 years or younger and moderate-intensity statin therapy in patients > 75 years with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease including those with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Statin prescribing patterns and their facility-level variation in patients with PAD are unknown. Methods: We examined the frequency and facility-level variation in the use of any and correct intensity of statins in patients with known PAD receiving primary care in 130 facilities across the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system with or without concomitant ischemic heart disease (IHD) or ischemic cerebrovascular disease (ICVD). We calculated the median rate ratios (MRR) adjusted for patient demographic factors to assess the magnitude of facility-level variation in statin prescribing patterns for comparable patients. Results: Among 194,151 patients with PAD, 88,905 (45.8%) had PAD without IHD (with or without ICVD) and 70,404 (36.3%) had PAD without IHD or ICVD. Rates of statin use in the entire PAD cohort, patients with PAD without IHD and PAD alone were 79.0%, 69.1% and 66.3%, respectively. Median facility-level rates of statin use were 78.9% (IQR 75.9-81.5), 69.2% (65.4-72.6) and 66.4% (62.6-70.1), respectively. Correct intensity statins were prescribed among 40.9% for the entire PAD cohort, 28.9% of those with PAD without IHD, and 26.4% of those with PAD alone. Median facility-level rate of correct statin intensity use in all PAD patients was 40.1% (36.4-44.2), 27.8% (24.1-32.4) for patients with PAD without IHD and 25.3% (10.8-29.7) in patients with PAD alone. Calculated MRRs reflected a 20-22% variation among two facilities in treating identical PAD patients with statin therapy and a 24-28% variation in treating identical patients with correct statin intensity (Table). Conclusions: The use of statin and especially correct statin intensity is suboptimal in PAD patients, especially in PAD patients without concomitant IHD or ICVD. There is a significant facility-level variation in the receipt of guideline directed statin therapy in PAD patients. Interventions are needed to improve guideline directed moderate to high-intensity statin use and to reduce variation in care in this high-risk group.

Download Full-text

Abstract 195: Statin Use and Its Facility Level Variation in Patients With Ischemic Cerebrovascular Disease: Insights From the Department of Veterans Affairs

Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes ◽

10.1161/circoutcomes.10.suppl_3.195 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 10 (suppl_3) ◽

Author(s):

Cameron L McBride ◽

Julia Akaroyd ◽

David J Ramsey ◽

Vijay Nambi ◽

Khurram Nasir ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cerebrovascular Disease ◽

Statin Therapy ◽

High Intensity ◽

Veterans Affairs ◽

Prescribing Patterns ◽

Moderate Intensity ◽

Level Variation ◽

Ischemic Cerebrovascular Disease ◽

Facility Level ◽

Statin Use

Background: The 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol guideline recommends high-intensity statin therapy in patients 75 or younger and moderate-intensity statins in patients > 75 years with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease including those with ischemic cerebrovascular disease (ICVD). Statin prescribing patterns and their facility-level variation in patients with ICVD are unknown. Methods: We examined the frequency and facility-level variation in the use of any and correct intensity statins in patients with ICVD (ischemic stroke or carotid arterial disease) who received primary care in 130 facilities across the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system with or without concomitant ischemic heart disease (IHD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). We then calculated median rate ratios (MRR) adjusted for patient demographic factors to assess the magnitude of facility-level variation in statin prescribing patterns for comparable patients. Results: Among 339,771 ICVD patients, 182,231 (53.6%) had ICVD without IHD (with or without PAD) and 163,730 (48.2%) had ICVD without IHD or PAD. Rates of statin use in the entire ICVD group, patients with ICVD without IHD, and ICVD alone were 78.1%, 70.9% and 69.9%, respectively. Median facility-level rates of any statin use were 78.1% (IQR 75.5-80.7), 70.7% (67.9-73.8) and 69.9% (66.9-73.1), respectively. Correct intensity statins were prescribed among 40.2% of the entire ICVD group, 30.5% with ICVD without IHD, and 29.6% with ICVD alone. Median facility-level rate of correct statin use in all ICVD patients was 39.1% (35.8-43.9), 29.9% (26.0-34.6) for patients with ICVD without IHD and 29.0% (25.4-33.7) in those with ICVD alone.Calculated MRRs reflect approximately 22% variation among two facilities treating two identical ICVD patients with statin therapy and a 27-28% variation in identical ICVD patients for correct statin intensity (Table). Conclusions: The use of statin and especially guideline-recommended statin intensity is suboptimal in ICVD patients, especially patients without concomitant IHD or PAD. There is significant facility-level variation in receipt of guideline directed statin therapy in ICVD patients. Interventions are needed to improve guideline directed moderate to high-intensity statin use and reduce variation in care in this high risk group.

Download Full-text

Facility-Level Variations in Kidney Disease Care among Veterans with Diabetes and CKD

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology ◽

10.2215/cjn.03830318 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 13 (12) ◽

pp. 1842-1850 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Sankar D. Navaneethan ◽

Julia M. Akeroyd ◽

David Ramsey ◽

Sarah T. Ahmed ◽

Shiva Raj Mishra ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Veterans Affairs ◽

Creatinine Ratio ◽

Angiotensin Receptor ◽

Urine Protein ◽

Urine Albumin ◽

Patients With Diabetes ◽

Facility Level ◽

Rate Ratios ◽

Core Measures ◽

Median Rate

Background and objectivesFacility-level variation has been reported among veterans receiving care for various diseases. We studied the frequency and facility-level variations of guideline-recommended practices in patients with diabetes and CKD.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsPatients with diabetes and concomitant CKD (eGFR 15–59 ml/min per 1.73 m2, measured twice, 90 days apart) receiving care in 130 facilities across the Veterans Affairs Health Care System were included (n=281,223). We studied the proportions of patients (facility-level) receiving recommended core measures and facility-level variations of these study outcomes using median rate ratios, adjusting for various patient and provider-level factors. Median rate ratio quantifies the degree to which care may vary for similar patients receiving care at two randomly chosen facilities, with <1 being no variation and >1.2 as substantial variation between the facilities. Study outcomes included measurement of urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio/urine protein-to-creatinine ratio and blood hemoglobin concentration, prescription of statins and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, BP<140/90 mm Hg, and referral to a Veterans Affairs nephrologist (only for those with eGFR<30 ml/min per 1.73 m2).ResultsAmong those with eGFR 30–59 ml/min per 1.73 m2, proportion of patients receiving recommended core measures (median and interquartile range across facilities) were 37% (22%–47%) for urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio/urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, 74% (72%–79%) for hemoglobin measurement, 66% (62%–69%) for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker prescription, 85% (74%–87%) for statin prescription, 47% (42%–53%) for achieving BP<140/90 mm Hg, and 13% (7%–16%) for meeting all outcome measures. Adjusted median rate ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 5.2 (4.1 to 6.4), 2.4 (2.1 to 2.6), 1.3 (1.2 to 1.3), 1.2 (1.2 to 1.3), 1.4 (1.3 to 1.4), and 4.1 (3.3 to 5.0), respectively. Median rate ratios were qualitatively similar in an analysis restricted to those with eGFR 15–29 ml/min per 1.73 m2.ConclusionsAmong patients with diabetes and CKD, at facility-level, ordering of laboratory tests, and scheduling of nephrology referrals in eligible patients remains suboptimal, with substantial variations across facilities.

Download Full-text

Utilization Rates of SGLT2 Inhibitors and GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Their Facility-Level Variation Among Patients With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease and Type 2 Diabetes: Insights From the Department of Veterans Affairs

10.2337/figshare.17052728.v1 ◽

2022 ◽

Author(s):

Dhruv Mahtta ◽

David J. Ramsey ◽

Michelle T. Lee ◽

Liang Chen ◽

Mahmoud Al Rifai ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Type 2 Diabetes ◽

Cardiovascular Disease ◽

Veterans Affairs ◽

Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease ◽

Level Variation ◽

Receptor Agonists ◽

Drug Classes ◽

Facility Level ◽

Rate Ratios

Objective: There is mounting evidence regarding the cardiovascular (CV) benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2-Is) and glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). There is paucity of data assessing real-world practice patterns for these drug classes. We aimed to assess utilization rates of these drug classes and facility-level variation in their utilization. Research Design and Methods: We used the nationwide Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system dataset from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 and included patients with established ASCVD and T2DM. Among these patients, we assessed the use of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA and the facility-level variation in their utilization. Facility-level variation was computed using median rate ratios (MRR), a measure of likelihood that two random facilities differ in use of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA in patients with ASCVD and T2DM. Results: Among 537,980 patients with ASCVD and T2DM across 130 VA facilities, 11.2% of patients received SGLT2i while 8.0% of patients received GLP-1RA. Patients receiving these cardioprotective glucose-lowering drug classes were on average younger and had a higher proportion of non-Hispanic Whites. Overall, median (10th-90th percentile) facility-level rates were 14.92% (9.31%-22.50%) for SGLT2i and 10.88% (4.44%-17.07%) for GLP-1RA. There was significant facility level variation among SGLT2-Is utilization - MRRunadjusted (95% CI):1.41 (1.35-1.47) and MRRadjusted (95% CI): 1.55 (1.46 – 1.63). Similar facility level variation was observed for utilization of GLP-1 RA – MRRunadjusted (95% CI):1.34 (1.29-1.38) and MRRadjusted (95% CI): 1.78 (1.65 – 1.90). Conclusions: Overall utilization rates of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA among eligible patients are low with significantly higher residual facility-level variation in utilization of these drug classes. Our results suggest opportunities to optimize their use to prevent future adverse cardiovascular events among these patients.

Download Full-text