Publications

BACKGROUND: Although statins are a class I recommendation for prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and its complications, their use is suboptimal. Differential underuse may mediate disparities in cardiovascular health for systematically marginalized persons.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate disparities in statin use by race-ethnicity-gender and to determine whether these potential disparities are explained by medical appropriateness of therapy and structural factors.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis.

SETTING: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2015 to 2020.

PARTICIPANTS: Persons eligible for statin therapy based on 2013 and 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association blood cholesterol guidelines.

MEASUREMENTS: The independent variable was race-ethnicity-gender. The outcome of interest was use of a statin. Using the Institute of Medicine framework for examining unequal treatment, we calculated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) to estimate disparities in statin use adjusted for age, disease severity, access to health care, and socioeconomic status relative to non-Hispanic White men.

RESULTS: For primary prevention, we identified a lower prevalence of statin use that was not explained by measurable differences in disease severity or structural factors among non-Hispanic Black men (aPR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88]) and non-Mexican Hispanic women (aPR, 0.74 [CI, 0.53 to 0.95]). For secondary prevention, we identified a lower prevalence of statin use that was not explained by measurable differences in disease severity or structural factors for non-Hispanic Black men (aPR, 0.81 [CI, 0.64 to 0.97]), other/multiracial men (aPR, 0.58 [CI, 0.20 to 0.97]), Mexican American women (aPR, 0.36 [CI, 0.10 to 0.61]), non-Mexican Hispanic women (aPR, 0.57 [CI, 0.33 to 0.82), non-Hispanic White women (aPR, 0.69 [CI, 0.56 to 0.83]), and non-Hispanic Black women (aPR, 0.75 [CI, 0.57 to 0.92]).

LIMITATION: Cross-sectional data; lack of geographic, language, or statin-dose data.

CONCLUSION: Statin use disparities for several race-ethnicity-gender groups are not explained by measurable differences in medical appropriateness of therapy, access to health care, and socioeconomic status. These residual disparities may be partially mediated by unobserved processes that contribute to health inequity, including bias, stereotyping, and mistrust.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

INTRODUCTION: Most patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) do not have a previous diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus (BE), demonstrating a failure of current screening practices. An understanding of patient attitudes and barriers is essential to develop and implement interventions to improve BE screening adherence.

METHODS: We conducted a Web-based survey of patients aged >50 years with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease at 3 academic medical centers and 1 affiliated safety net health systems. Survey domains included patient characteristics, endoscopy history, familiarity with screening practices, perceived BE/EAC risk, and barriers to screening.

RESULTS: We obtained a response rate of 22.6% (472/2,084) (74% men, mean age 67.9 years). Self-identified race and ethnicity of participants was 66.5% non-Hispanic White, 20.0% non-Hispanic Black, 13.4% other race, and 7.1% Hispanic. Screening for BE was recommended in only 13.2%, and only 5.3% reported previous screening. Respondents had notable gaps in knowledge about screening indications; only two-thirds correctly identified BE risk factors and only 19.5% believed BE screening was needed for gastroesophageal reflux disease. More than 1 in 5 respondents believed they would get BE (31.9%) or EAC (20.2%) but reported barriers to screening. Compared with White respondents, more Black respondents were concerned about getting BE/EAC and interested in screening but report higher barriers to screening.

DISCUSSION: Patients at risk for BE, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, are worried about developing EAC but rarely undergo screening and have poor understanding of screening recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Most patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) do not have a previous diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus (BE), demonstrating a failure of current screening practices. An understanding of patient attitudes and barriers is essential to develop and implement interventions to improve BE screening adherence.

METHODS: We conducted a Web-based survey of patients aged >50 years with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease at 3 academic medical centers and 1 affiliated safety net health systems. Survey domains included patient characteristics, endoscopy history, familiarity with screening practices, perceived BE/EAC risk, and barriers to screening.

RESULTS: We obtained a response rate of 22.6% (472/2,084) (74% men, mean age 67.9 years). Self-identified race and ethnicity of participants was 66.5% non-Hispanic White, 20.0% non-Hispanic Black, 13.4% other race, and 7.1% Hispanic. Screening for BE was recommended in only 13.2%, and only 5.3% reported previous screening. Respondents had notable gaps in knowledge about screening indications; only two-thirds correctly identified BE risk factors and only 19.5% believed BE screening was needed for gastroesophageal reflux disease. More than 1 in 5 respondents believed they would get BE (31.9%) or EAC (20.2%) but reported barriers to screening. Compared with White respondents, more Black respondents were concerned about getting BE/EAC and interested in screening but report higher barriers to screening.

DISCUSSION: Patients at risk for BE, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, are worried about developing EAC but rarely undergo screening and have poor understanding of screening recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Although statins are a class I recommendation for prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and its complications, their use is suboptimal. Differential underuse may mediate disparities in cardiovascular health for systematically marginalized persons.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate disparities in statin use by race-ethnicity-gender and to determine whether these potential disparities are explained by medical appropriateness of therapy and structural factors.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis.

SETTING: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2015 to 2020.

PARTICIPANTS: Persons eligible for statin therapy based on 2013 and 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association blood cholesterol guidelines.

MEASUREMENTS: The independent variable was race-ethnicity-gender. The outcome of interest was use of a statin. Using the Institute of Medicine framework for examining unequal treatment, we calculated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) to estimate disparities in statin use adjusted for age, disease severity, access to health care, and socioeconomic status relative to non-Hispanic White men.

RESULTS: For primary prevention, we identified a lower prevalence of statin use that was not explained by measurable differences in disease severity or structural factors among non-Hispanic Black men (aPR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88]) and non-Mexican Hispanic women (aPR, 0.74 [CI, 0.53 to 0.95]). For secondary prevention, we identified a lower prevalence of statin use that was not explained by measurable differences in disease severity or structural factors for non-Hispanic Black men (aPR, 0.81 [CI, 0.64 to 0.97]), other/multiracial men (aPR, 0.58 [CI, 0.20 to 0.97]), Mexican American women (aPR, 0.36 [CI, 0.10 to 0.61]), non-Mexican Hispanic women (aPR, 0.57 [CI, 0.33 to 0.82), non-Hispanic White women (aPR, 0.69 [CI, 0.56 to 0.83]), and non-Hispanic Black women (aPR, 0.75 [CI, 0.57 to 0.92]).

LIMITATION: Cross-sectional data; lack of geographic, language, or statin-dose data.

CONCLUSION: Statin use disparities for several race-ethnicity-gender groups are not explained by measurable differences in medical appropriateness of therapy, access to health care, and socioeconomic status. These residual disparities may be partially mediated by unobserved processes that contribute to health inequity, including bias, stereotyping, and mistrust.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia, the management of which includes anticoagulation for stroke prevention. Although disparities in anticoagulant prescribing have been well documented for individual socioeconomic factors, less is known about the association of neighborhood-level disadvantage and anticoagulation for AF.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between neighborhood disadvantage and anticoagulant initiation for patients with incident AF.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of patients enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) with incident AF from January 2014 through December 2020 from the Race, Ethnicity, and Anticoagulant CHoice in Atrial Fibrillation (REACH-AF) Study.

MAIN MEASURES: The primary exposure was neighborhood disadvantage quantified using area deprivation index (ADI), classified by quintiles (Q). The outcomes were initiation of any anticoagulant therapy (warfarin or direct oral anticoagulant, DOAC) within 90 days of AF diagnosis and DOAC use among initiators. We used mixed effects logistic regression to assess the association between ADI and anticoagulant therapy, incorporating a fixed effect for treatment site and baseline patient, provider, and facility covariates.

KEY RESULTS: Among 161,089 patients, 105,489 (65.5%) initiated any anticoagulant therapy, and 78,903 (74.8%) used DOACs. Any anticoagulant therapy increased 3.2 percentage points (63.0% to 66.2%; p<.001) from Q1 to Q5, whereas DOAC use decreased 8.2 percentage points (79.4% to 71.2%; p<.0001) across quintiles. The adjusted odd ratios of any anticoagulant therapy were non-significantly different for Q2-Q5 than Q1. The adjusted odds of DOAC use decreased progressively from 0.89 (95% CI, 0.84-0.94) in Q2 to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.83) in Q5 compared to Q1 (p<.0001).

CONCLUSIONS: Among Veterans with incident AF, we observed similar initiation of any anticoagulant, though neighborhood deprivation was associated with decreased DOAC use among anticoagulant initiators. Future interventions to improve pharmacoequity in anticoagulant prescribing for AF should consider the role of neighborhood-level determinants of health inequities.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on healthcare delivery. Although others have documented the impact on new cancer diagnoses, trends in new starts for oncology drugs are less clear. We examined changes in new users of oral oncology medications in the US following COVID-19 stay-at-home orders in 2020 compared to prior years.

METHODS: We examined prescription data for members enrolled with a national pharmacy benefits manager in the US from January 1-October 31 of 2018, 2019, and/or 2020. This is a retrospective, observational study comparing new users per 100,000 members per month for all oral oncology drugs, and separately for breast, lung, and prostate cancer, leukemia, and melanoma oral drugs. We performed a difference-in-differences analysis for change in new users from pre-period (prior to pandemic-induced disruption, January-March), to post-period (following pandemic-induced disruption, April-October), between 2020 and 2019, and 2020 and 2018.

RESULTS: New oral oncology drug users per 100,000 members per month declined by an additional 11.3% in the 2020 post-period compared to 2019 (p = 0.048). New oral breast cancer drug starts declined by an additional 14.0% in the 2020 post-period compared to 2019 (p = 0.040). Similar but non-significant trends were found between 2020 and 2018. No significant differences were found between post-period monthly new starts of leukemia, melanoma, lung or prostate cancer disease-specific oral medications.

CONCLUSIONS: Long-term implications of delays in cancer treatment initiation are unclear, although there is concern that patient outcomes may be negatively impacted.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to assess the impact of ≥15% body mass index (BMI) reduction on employees' health expenditures.

METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed health risk assessment surveys combined with insurance claims from January 2014 to December 2019. We compared costs of employees with baseline BMI > 30 who reported ≥15% BMI reduction in subsequent health risk assessment reports with employees who lost ≤5% BMI within the same period, matching the two cohorts on demographics and costs.

RESULTS: The study cohort of 197 lost an average of 23% of their BMI from baseline. The average age was 44 years with majority females (approximately 80%). Group health insurance payments were similar at baseline; at year 1, the study cohort had a 33% payment reduction compared with 10% reduction in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS: A ≥15% BMI reduction was associated with a substantial medical cost savings.

Background PCSK9is (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors) are well tolerated, potently lower cholesterol, and decrease cardiovascular events when added to statins. However, statin adherence may decrease after PCSK9i initiation and alter clinical outcomes. We evaluate the association of PCSK9i initiation on statin discontinuation and adherence. Methods and Results In this retrospective pre-post difference-in-difference analysis, new PCSK9i claims were propensity matched with statin-alone users (April 2017-September 2019). The primary outcomes were statin adherence (proportion of days covered) and statin discontinuation (absence of statin coverage for at least 60 days) 12 months following PCSK9i initiation. Secondary outcomes included low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels after 1 year. A total of 220 538 statin users and 700 PCSK9i users were identified, from which 178 on PCSK9i were included and matched to 712 on statins alone. At 12 months, mean statin proportion of days covered decreased from 67% to 48% in the PCSK9i group but increased from 68% to 86% in the statin-alone groups (P<0.0001). Statin discontinuation rates increased from 11% to 39% in the PCSK9i group and from 7% to 9% in the statin-alone group (P=0.0041). Patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <70 mg/dL increased from 5% to 68% with PCSK9i but increased from 16% to 24% with statins alone (P<0.0001). Changes in hospitalization rates were similar between both groups during the follow-up period. Conclusions PCSK9i initiation was associated with decreased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, higher statin discontinuation, and reduced statin adherence.