Therapy modifications in response to poorly controlled hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Poorly controlled cardiovascular risk factors are common. Evaluating whether physicians respond appropriately to poor risk factor control in patients may better reflect quality of care than measuring proportions of patients whose conditions are controlled. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate therapy modifications in response to poor control of hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes in a large clinical population. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study within an 18-month period in 2002 to 2003. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente of Northern California. PATIENTS: 253,238 adult members with poor control of 1 or more of these conditions. MEASUREMENTS: The authors assessed the proportion of patients with poor control who experienced a change in pharmacotherapy within 6 months, and they defined "appropriate care" as a therapy modification or return to control without therapy modification within 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 64% of patients experienced modifications in therapy for poorly controlled systolic blood pressure, 71% for poorly controlled diastolic blood pressure, 56% for poorly controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, and 66% for poorly controlled hemoglobin A1c level. Most frequent modifications were increases in number of drug classes (from 70% to 84%) and increased dosage (from 15% to 40%). An additional 7% to 11% of those with poorly controlled blood pressure, but only 3% to 4% of those with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level or hemoglobin A1c level, returned to control without therapy modification. Patients with more than 1 of the 3 conditions, higher baseline values, and target organ damage were more likely to receive "appropriate care." LIMITATIONS: Patient preferences and suboptimal adherence to therapy were not measured and may explain some failures to act. CONCLUSIONS: As an additional measure of the quality of care, measuring therapy modifications in response to poor control in a large population is feasible. Many patients with poorly controlled hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes had their therapy modified and, thus, seemed to receive clinically "appropriate care" with this new quality measure.

Treatment intensification and risk factor control: toward more clinically relevant quality measures.

BACKGROUND: Intensification of pharmacotherapy in persons with poorly controlled chronic conditions has been proposed as a clinically meaningful process measure of quality. OBJECTIVE: To validate measures of treatment intensification by evaluating their associations with subsequent control in hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus across 35 medical facility populations in Kaiser Permanente, Northern California. DESIGN: Hierarchical analyses of associations of improvements in facility-level treatment intensification rates from 2001 to 2003 with patient-level risk factor levels at the end of 2003. PATIENTS: Members (515,072 and 626,130; age >20 years) with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and/or diabetes mellitus in 2001 and 2003, respectively. MEASUREMENTS: Treatment intensification for each risk factor defined as an increase in number of drug classes prescribed, of dosage for at least 1 drug, or switching to a drug from another class within 3 months of observed poor risk factor control. RESULTS: Facility-level improvements in treatment intensification rates between 2001 and 2003 were strongly associated with greater likelihood of being in control at the end of 2003 (P < or = 0.05 for each risk factor) after adjustment for patient- and facility-level covariates. Compared with facility rankings based solely on control, addition of percentages of poorly controlled patients who received treatment intensification changed 2003 rankings substantially: 14%, 51%, and 29% of the facilities changed ranks by 5 or more positions for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment intensification is tightly linked to improved control. Thus, it deserves consideration as a process measure for motivating quality improvement and possibly for measuring clinical performance.

Low statin use in adults hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To assess recommended and actual use of statins in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) based on clinical prediction scores in adults who develop their first acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHOD: Cross-sectional study of 3172 adults without previous CVD hospitalized with ACS at 4 university centers in Switzerland. The number of participants eligible for statins before hospitalization was estimated based on the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines and compared to the observed number of participants on statins at hospital entry. RESULTS: Overall, 1171 (37%) participants were classified as high-risk (10-year risk of cardiovascular mortality &#8805;5% or diabetes); 1025 (32%) as intermediate risk (10-year risk <5% but &#8805;1%); and 976 (31%) as low risk (10-year risk <1%). Before hospitalization, 516 (16%) were on statins; among high-risk participants, only 236 of 1171 (20%) were on statins. If ESC primary prevention guidelines had been fully implemented, an additional 845 high-risk adults (27% of the whole sample) would have been eligible for statins before hospitalization. CONCLUSION: Although statins are recommended for primary prevention in high-risk adults, only one-fifth of them are on statins when hospitalized for a first ACS.