22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      National Trends in Nonstatin Use and Expenditures Among the US Adult Population From 2002 to 2013: Insights From Medical Expenditure Panel Survey

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Evidence supporting nonstatin lipid‐lowering therapy in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk reduction is variable. We aim to examine nonstatin utilization and expenditures in the United States between 2002 and 2013.

          Methods and Results

          We used the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey database to estimate national trends in nonstatin use and cost (total and out‐of‐pocket, adjusted to 2013 US dollars using a gross domestic product deflator) among adults 40 years or older. Nonstatin users increased from 3 million (2.5%) in 2002‐2003 (20.1 million prescriptions) to 8 million (5.6%) in 2012‐2013 (45.8 million prescriptions). Among adults with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, nonstatin use increased from 7.5% in 2002‐2003 to 13.9% in 2012‐2013 after peaking at 20.3% in 2006‐2007. In 2012‐2013, 15.9% of high‐intensity statin users also used nonstatins, versus 9.7% of low/moderate‐intensity users and 3.6% of statin nonusers. Nonstatin use was significantly lower among women (odds ratio 0.80; 95% confidence interval 0.75‐0.86), racial/ethnic minorities (odds ratio 0.41; 95% confidence interval 0.36‐0.47), and the uninsured (odds ratio 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.40‐0.56). Total nonstatin expenditures increased from $1.7 billion (out‐of‐pocket cost, $0.7 billion) in 2002‐2003 to $7.9 billion (out‐of‐pocket cost $1.6 billion) in 2012‐2013, as per‐user nonstatin expenditure increased from $550 to $992. Nonstatin expenditure as a proportion of all lipid‐lowering therapy expenditure increased 4‐fold from 8% to 32%.

          Conclusions

          Between 2002 and 2013, nonstatin use increased by 124%, resulting in a 364% increase in nonstatin‐associated expenditures.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Simvastatin with or without ezetimibe in familial hypercholesterolemia.

          Ezetimibe, a cholesterol-absorption inhibitor, reduces levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol when added to statin treatment. However, the effect of ezetimibe on the progression of atherosclerosis remains unknown. We conducted a double-blind, randomized, 24-month trial comparing the effects of daily therapy with 80 mg of simvastatin either with placebo or with 10 mg of ezetimibe in 720 patients with familial hypercholesterolemia. Patients underwent B-mode ultrasonography to assess the intima-media thickness of the walls of the carotid and femoral arteries. The primary outcome measure was the change in the mean carotid-artery intima-media thickness, which was defined as the average of the means of the far-wall intima-media thickness of the right and left common carotid arteries, carotid bulbs, and internal carotid arteries. The primary outcome, the mean (+/-SE) change in the carotid-artery intima-media thickness, was 0.0058+/-0.0037 mm in the simvastatin-only group and 0.0111+/-0.0038 mm in the simvastatin-plus-ezetimibe (combined-therapy) group (P=0.29). Secondary outcomes (consisting of other variables regarding the intima-media thickness of the carotid and femoral arteries) did not differ significantly between the two groups. At the end of the study, the mean (+/-SD) LDL cholesterol level was 192.7+/-60.3 mg per deciliter (4.98+/-1.56 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin group and 141.3+/-52.6 mg per deciliter (3.65+/-1.36 mmol per liter) in the combined-therapy group (a between-group difference of 16.5%, P<0.01). The differences between the two groups in reductions in levels of triglycerides and C-reactive protein were 6.6% and 25.7%, respectively, with greater reductions in the combined-therapy group (P<0.01 for both comparisons). Side-effect and safety profiles were similar in the two groups. In patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, combined therapy with ezetimibe and simvastatin did not result in a significant difference in changes in intima-media thickness, as compared with simvastatin alone, despite decreases in levels of LDL cholesterol and C-reactive protein. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00552097 [ClinicalTrials.gov].). Copyright 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Management of residual risk after statin therapy.

            Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality worldwide. Observational data indicate that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels are strongly positively associated with the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) whilst the level of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) is strongly inversely associated, with additional associations being observed for other lipid parameters such as triglycerides, apolipoproteins and lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)). This has led to an interest in the development of a range of lipid intervention therapies. The most widely used of these interventions are statins, but even with intensive statin therapy some groups of patients remain at significant residual cardiovascular (CV) risk. In addition, some people are intolerant of statin therapy. In these circumstances, additional therapeutic agents may be needed. This review considers the evidence behind and the pros and cons of such additional agents.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Implications of the 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol guidelines for adults in contemporary cardiovascular practice: insights from the NCDR PINNACLE registry.

              In a significant update, the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) cholesterol guidelines recommend fixed-dose statin therapy for those at risk and do not recommend nonstatin therapies or treatment to target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, limiting the need for repeated LDL-C testing.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                khurramn@baptisthealth.net
                Journal
                J Am Heart Assoc
                J Am Heart Assoc
                10.1002/(ISSN)2047-9980
                JAH3
                ahaoa
                Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2047-9980
                22 January 2018
                January 2018
                : 7
                : 2 ( doiID: 10.1002/jah3.2018.7.issue-2 )
                : e007132
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Center for Healthcare Advancement and Outcomes Baptist Health South Florida Miami FL
                [ 2 ] Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute Baptist Health South Florida Miami FL
                [ 3 ] Department of Medicine Division of Cardiology Duke University Medical Center Durham NC
                [ 4 ] Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation Yale New Haven Hospital & Section of Cardiovascular Medicine Yale University New Haven CT
                [ 5 ] Divisions of Cardiology and Research Kaiser Permanente Northern California Oakland CA
                [ 6 ] Michael E. DeBakley Veterans Affairs Medical Center & Section of Cardiology Baylor College of Medicine Houston TX
                [ 7 ] Cardiovascular Imaging Program Cardiovascular Division and Department of Radiology Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston MA
                [ 8 ] Division of Cardiology Department of Medicine University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas TX
                [ 9 ] The Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Baltimore MD
                [ 10 ] Department of Preventive Medicine & Division of Cardiology Department of Medicine Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University Chicago IL
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence to: Khurram Nasir, MD, MPH, Center for Healthcare Advancement and Outcomes, Baptist Health South Florida, 1500 San Remo Ave. Suite 340. Coral Gables, FL 33146. E‐mail: khurramn@ 123456baptisthealth.net
                [†]

                Dr Salami and Dr Warraich contributed equally to this work.

                Article
                JAH32837
                10.1161/JAHA.117.007132
                5850149
                29358195
                f43a29c7-168e-40e2-9ff5-c9faa922ffbf
                © 2018 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 12 July 2017
                : 14 November 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 3, Pages: 30, Words: 7382
                Categories
                Original Research
                Original Research
                Health Services and Outcomes Research
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                jah32837
                January 2018
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:version=5.3.1 mode:remove_FC converted:23.01.2018

                Cardiovascular Medicine
                cardiovascular disease prevention,cost,health economics,nonstatin,statin,quality and outcomes,cost-effectiveness,primary prevention

                Comments

                Comment on this article