American Journal of Cardiology
Volume 105, Issue 6 , Pages 786-791, 15 March 2010

Comparison of Evidence-Based Versus Non–Evidence-Based Pharmacotherapy on the Risk of Cardiovascular Hospitalization and All-Cause Mortality Among Patients With Established Cardiovascular Disease

  • Gregory A. Nichols, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Kaiser Permanente, Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Tel: (503) 335-6733; fax: (503) 335-6311
  • ,
  • Fang Wang, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • GlaxoSmithKline, Incorporated, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania
  • ,
  • Kathryn L. Pedula, MS

      Affiliations

    • Kaiser Permanente, Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon

Received 17 September 2009; received in revised form 5 November 2009; accepted 5 November 2009. published online 08 February 2010.

Landmark studies have proved that several therapies reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk; however, the rates of secondary CVD in the context of therapies delivered according to current guidelines are largely unknown. Therefore, we sought to estimate the incidence of secondary CVD hospitalizations and all-cause mortality among patients who did and did not receive guideline-level pharmacotherapy. For the 12,278 patients added to the Kaiser Permanente, Northwest CVD registry in 2000 to 2005, we used the pharmacy records to define guideline-level care (GLC) as at least one dispense of aspirin/antiplatelets, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and β blockers within 6 months after registry enrollment. We followed patients until they died, experienced a CVD hospitalization, or June 30, 2008. We compared the age- and gender-adjusted incidence rates per 1,000 person-years of CVD hospitalization, death, and the composite, and estimated the hazard ratios using Cox regression analysis. During a mean follow-up of 45.8 ± 22.8 months, 25% of the study sample experienced the composite outcome. The age- and gender-adjusted incidence per 1,000 person-years of the composite outcome was significantly lower among GLC patients (hazard ratio 50.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 46.6 to 54.3) versus non-GLC patients (hazard ratio 60.7, 95% CI 58.1 to 63.4). The difference was driven by lower mortality rates (hazard ratio 18.1, 95% CI 16.1 to 20.4 vs hazard ratio 28.1, 95% CI 26.3 to 30.0). The incidence of CVD hospitalizations did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (hazard ratio 29.2, 95% CI 26.4 to 32.2 vs hazard ratio 27.7, 95% CI 26.0 to 29.5). Multivariate adjustment resulted in a marginally significant 8% lower risk of the composite outcome among GLC recipients (hazard ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01, p = 0.067). In conclusion, treatment according to current guidelines was significantly associated with reduced mortality but not the risk of secondary hospitalizations.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Dr. Nichols has received research support from Amgen, Incorporated (Thousand Oaks, California), Novo Nordisk (Bagsvaerd, Denmark), Novartis Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland), Tethys BioScience, Incorporated (Emeryville, California), and Merck & Company, Incorporated (Whitehouse Station, New Jersey).

 Dr. Wang is a GlaxoSmithKline employee.

 By contract and in accordance with the Uniform Requirements for Biomedical Journal submissions, Dr. Nichols had the final say in the design, interpretation, and presentation of the data and text.

PII: S0002-9149(09)02677-0

doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.11.008

American Journal of Cardiology
Volume 105, Issue 6 , Pages 786-791, 15 March 2010