Publications

BACKGROUND: Disparities in opioid prescribing among racial and ethnic groups have been observed in outpatient and emergency department settings, but it is unknown whether similar disparities exist at discharge among hospitalized older adults.

OBJECTIVE: To determine filled opioid prescription rates on hospital discharge by race/ethnicity among Medicare beneficiaries.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older discharged from hospital in 2016, without opioid fills in the 90 days prior to hospitalization (opioid-naïve).

MAIN MEASURES: Race/ethnicity was categorized by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI), grouped as Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, other (American Indian/Alaska Native/unknown/other), and White. The primary outcome was an opioid prescription claim within 2 days of hospital discharge. The secondary outcome was total morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) among adults with a filled opioid prescription.

KEY RESULTS: Among 316,039 previously opioid-naïve beneficiaries (mean age, 76.8 years; 56.2% female), 49,131 (15.5%) filled an opioid prescription within 2 days of hospital discharge. After adjustment, Black beneficiaries were 6% less likely (relative risk [RR] 0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.97) and Asian/Pacific Islander beneficiaries were 9% more likely (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03-1.14) to have filled an opioid prescription when compared to White beneficiaries. Among beneficiaries with a filled opioid prescription, mean total MMEs were lower among Black (356.9; adjusted difference - 4%, 95% CI - 7 to - 1%), Hispanic (327.0; adjusted difference - 7%, 95% CI - 10 to - 4%), and Asian/Pacific Islander (328.2; adjusted difference - 8%, 95% CI - 12 to - 4%) beneficiaries when compared to White beneficiaries (409.7).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Black older adults were less likely to fill a new opioid prescription after hospital discharge when compared to White older adults and received lower total MMEs. The factors contributing to these differential prescribing patterns should be investigated further.

IMPORTANCE: In 2023, the American Heart Association (AHA) developed the Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Events (PREVENT) equations to estimate 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), as an update to the 2013 pooled cohort equations (PCEs). The PREVENT equations were derived from contemporary cohorts and removed race and added variables for kidney function and statin use.

OBJECTIVE: To compare national estimates of 10-year ASCVD risk using the PCEs and PREVENT equations and how these equations affect recommendations for primary prevention statin therapy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study included adults aged 40 to 75 years who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2017 to March 2020. Adults were defined as eligible for primary prevention statin use based on the 2019 AHA/American College of Cardiology guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Data were weighted to be nationally representative and were analyzed from December 27, 2023, to January 31, 2024.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The 10-year ASCVD risk and eligibility for primary prevention statin therapy based on PREVENT and PCE calculations.

RESULTS: In the weighted sample of 3785 US adults (mean [SD] age, 55.7 [9.7] years; 52.5% women) without known ASCVD, 20.7% reported current statin use. The mean estimated 10-year ASCVD risk was 8.0% (95% CI, 7.6%-8.4%) using the PCEs and 4.3% (95% CI, 4.1%-4.5%) using the PREVENT equations. Across all age, sex, and racial subgroups, compared with the PCEs, the mean estimated 10-year ASCVD risk was lower using the PREVENT equations, with the largest difference for Black adults (10.9% [95% CI, 10.1%-11.7%] vs 5.1% [95% CI 4.7%-5.4%]) and individuals aged 70 to 75 years (22.8% [95% CI, 21.6%-24.1%] vs 10.2% [95% CI, 9.6%-10.8%]). The use of the PREVENT equations instead of the PCEs could reduce the number of adults meeting criteria for primary prevention statin therapy from 45.4 million (95% CI, 40.3 million-50.4 million) to 28.3 million (95% CI, 25.2 million-31.4 million). In other words, 17.3 million (95% CI, 14.8 million-19.7 million) adults recommended statins based on the PCEs would no longer be recommended statins based on PREVENT equations, including 4.1 million (95% CI, 2.8 million-5.5 million) adults currently taking statins. Based on the PREVENT equations, 44.1% (95% CI, 38.6%-49.5%) of adults eligible for primary prevention statin therapy reported currently taking statins, equating to 15.8 million (95% CI, 13.4 million-18.2 million) individuals eligible for primary prevention statins who reported not taking statins.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cross-sectional study found that use of the PREVENT equations was associated with fewer US adults being eligible for primary prevention statin therapy; however, the majority of adults eligible for receiving such therapy based on PREVENT equations did not report statin use.

Over the past 3 decades, a substantial body of high-quality evidence has guided the diagnosis and management of elevated blood pressure (BP) in the outpatient setting. In contrast, there is a lack of comparable evidence for guiding the management of elevated BP in the acute care setting, resulting in significant practice variation. Throughout this scientific statement, we use the terms acute care and inpatient to refer to care received in the emergency department and after admission to the hospital. Elevated inpatient BP is common and can manifest either as asymptomatic or with signs of new or worsening target-organ damage, a condition referred to as hypertensive emergency. Hypertensive emergency involves acute target-organ damage and should be treated swiftly, usually with intravenous antihypertensive medications, in a closely monitored setting. However, the risk-benefit ratio of initiating or intensifying antihypertensive medications for asymptomatic elevated inpatient BP is less clear. Despite this ambiguity, clinicians prescribe oral or intravenous antihypertensive medications in approximately one-third of cases of asymptomatic elevated inpatient BP. Recent observational studies have suggested potential harms associated with treating asymptomatic elevated inpatient BP, which brings current practice into question. Despite the ubiquity of elevated inpatient BPs, few position papers, guidelines, or consensus statements have focused on improving BP management in the acute care setting. Therefore, this scientific statement aims to synthesize the available evidence, provide suggestions for best practice based on the available evidence, identify evidence-based gaps in managing elevated inpatient BP (asymptomatic and hypertensive emergency), and highlight areas requiring further research.

BACKGROUND: Timely follow-up after cardiovascular hospitalization is recommended to monitor recovery, titrate medications, and coordinate care.

OBJECTIVE: To describe trends and disparities in follow-up after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING: Medicare.

PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized between 2010 and 2019.

MEASUREMENTS: Receipt of a cardiology visit within 30 days of discharge. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate changes over time overall and across 5 sociodemographic characteristics on the basis of known disparities in cardiovascular outcomes.

RESULTS: The cohort included 1 678 088 AMI and 4 245 665 HF hospitalizations. Between 2010 and 2019, the rate of cardiology follow-up increased from 48.3% to 61.4% for AMI hospitalizations and from 35.2% to 48.3% for HF hospitalizations. For both conditions, follow-up rates increased for all subgroups, yet disparities worsened for Hispanic patients with AMI and patients with HF who were Asian, Black, Hispanic, Medicaid dual eligible, and residents of counties with higher levels of social deprivation. By 2019, the largest disparities were between Black and White patients (AMI, 51.9% vs. 59.8%, difference, 7.9 percentage points [pp] [95% CI, 6.8 to 9.0 pp]; HF, 39.8% vs. 48.7%, difference, 8.9 pp [CI, 8.2 to 9.7 pp]) and Medicaid dual-eligible and non-dual-eligible patients (AMI, 52.8% vs. 60.4%, difference, 7.6 pp [CI, 6.9 to 8.4 pp]; HF, 39.7% vs. 49.4%, difference, 9.6 pp [CI, 9.2 to 10.1 pp]). Differences between hospitals explained 7.3 pp [CI, 6.7 to 7.9 pp] of the variation in follow-up for AMI and 7.7 pp [CI, 7.2 to 8.1 pp]) for HF.

LIMITATION: Generalizability to other payers.

CONCLUSION: Equity-informed policy and health system strategies are needed to further reduce gaps in follow-up care for patients with AMI and patients with HF.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging.