Dhruv Mahtta

OBJECTIVE: There is mounting evidence regarding the cardiovascular benefits of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (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 use. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used the nationwide Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system data set from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020 and included patients with established ASCVD and T2DM. Among these patients, we assessed the use of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA and the facility-level variation in their use. 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-1 RA in patients with ASCVD and T2DM. RESULTS: Among 537,980 patients with ASCVD and T2DM across 130 VA facilities, 11.2% of patients received an SGLT2i while 8.0% of patients received a GLP-1 RA. 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-1 RA. There was significant facility-level variation among SGLT2i use—MRRunadjusted: 1.41 (95% CI 1.35–1.47) and MRRadjusted: 1.55 (95% CI 1.46 –1.63). Similar facility-level variation was observed for use of GLP-1 RA—MRRunadjusted: 1.34 (95% CI 1.29–1.38) and MRRadjusted: 1.78 (95% CI 1.65–1.90). CONCLUSIONS: Overall utilization rates of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA among eligible patients are low, with significantly higher residual facility-level variation in the use of these drug classes. Our results suggest opportunities to optimize their use to prevent future adverse cardiovascular events among these patients.

Background: Well‐conducted meta‐analyses are considered to be at the top of the evidence‐based hierarchy pyramid, with an expansion of these publications within the cardiovascular research arena. There are limited data evaluating the trends and quality of such publications. The objective of this study was to evaluate the methodological rigor and temporal trends of cardiovascular medicine‐related meta‐analyses published in the highest impact journals. Methods and Results: Using the Medline database, we retrieved cardiovascular medicine‐related systematic reviews and meta‐analyses published in The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, The British Medical Journal, Annals of Internal Medicine, Circulation, European Heart Journal, and Journal of American College of Cardiology between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2018. Among 6406 original investigations published during the study period, meta‐analyses represented 422 (6.6%) articles, with an annual decline in the proportion of published meta‐analyses (8.7% in 2012 versus 4.6% in 2018, P _trend =0.002). A substantial number of studies failed to incorporate elements of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses or Meta‐Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines (51.9%) and only a minority of studies (10.4%) were registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews). Fewer manuscripts failed to incorporate the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses or Meta‐Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology elements over time (60.2% in 2012 versus 40.0% in 2018, P _trend P _trend <0.001). Conclusions: The proportion of cardiovascular medicine‐related meta‐analyses published in the highest impact journals has declined over time. Although there is an increasing trend in compliance with quality‐based guidelines, the overall compliance remains low.

Objective Despite an upsurge in the incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD) among young adults, the attributable risk of recreational substance use among young patients has been incompletely evaluated. We evaluated the association of all recreational substances with premature and extremely premature ASCVD. Methods In a cross-sectional analysis using the 2014–2015 nationwide Veterans Affairs Healthcare database and the Veterans wIth premaTure AtheroscLerosis (VITAL) registry, patients were categorised as having premature, extremely premature or non-premature ASCVD. Premature ASCVD was defined as having first ASCVD event at age Results Compared with patients with non-premature ASCVD, patients with premature ASCVD had a higher use of tobacco (62.9% vs 40.6%), alcohol (31.8% vs 14.8%), cocaine (12.9% vs 2.5%), amphetamine (2.9% vs 0.5%) and cannabis (12.5% vs 2.7%) (pConclusions All subgroups of recreational substances were independently associated with a higher likelihood of premature and extremely premature ASCVD. Recreational substance use confers a greater magnitude of risk for premature ASCVD among women. A graded response relationship exists between increasing number of recreational substances used and higher likelihood of early-onset ASCVD.

Background: Despite guideline recommendations and clinical trial data suggesting benefit, statin therapy use in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains suboptimal. The aim of this study was to understand clinician and patient views on statin therapy, statin‐associated side effects (SASEs), SASE management, and communication around statin risks and benefits. Methods and Results: We conducted qualitative interviews of patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who had SASEs (n=17) and clinicians who regularly prescribe statins (n=20). We used directed content analysis, facilitated by Atlas.ti software, to develop and revise codebooks for clinician and patient interviews. The most relevant codes were “pile sorted” into 5 main topic domains: (1) SASEs vary in severity, duration, and time of onset; (2) communication practices by clinicians around statins and SASEs are variable and impacted by clinician time limitations and patient preconceived notions of SASEs; (3) although a “trial and error” approach to managing SASEs may be effective in allowing clinicians to keep patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease on a statin, it can be frustrating for patients; (4) outside sources, such as the media, internet, social networks, and social circles, influence patients' perceptions and often impact the risk benefit discussion; and (5) a decision aid would be beneficial in facilitating clinician decision‐making around SASEs and discussion of SASEs with the patients. Conclusions: Statin use among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains suboptimal because of various patient‐ and clinician‐related factors. The development of a decision aid to facilitate discussion of SASEs, clinician decision‐making, and SASE management may improve statin use in this high‐risk population.