Abstract P43: Frequency and Predictors of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Control and Appropriate Response to Elevated LDL-C Levels in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although current cholesterol performance measures define good quality as low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels < 100mg/dl in cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients, they provide a snap shot at one time point and do not inform whether an appropriate action was taken to manage elevated LDL-C levels. We assessed frequency and predictors of this appropriate response (AR). Methods: We used administrative data to assess 22,902 CVD patients receiving care in a Veterans Affairs network of 7 hospitals and affiliated clinics. We determined the proportion of CVD patients at LDL-C goal <100 mg/dl, and the proportion of patients with uncontrolled LDL-C levels (>100 mg/dl) who had an AR [defined as the initiation or dosage increase of a lipid lowering medication (LLM), addition of a new LLM, receipt of maximum dosage or >1 LLM, or LDL-C reading <100 mg/dl] at 45 days follow-up. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate facility, provider and patient characteristics associated with AR. Results: LDL-C levels were at goal in 16,350 (71.4%) patients. An additional 2,110 (9.2%) had an AR at 45 days of follow-up. Controlling for clustering between facilities and patient's illness severity, history of diabetes (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.03-1.35), hypertension (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02-1.44), patients showing good medication adherence (medication possession ratio > 0.8) [OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.99-2.64] were associated with AR. Older CVD patients (age >75 years) were less likely to receive AR (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.52-0.70). Teaching vs. non-teaching facility (p=0.40), physician vs. non-physician provider (p=0.14), specialist vs. non-specialist primary care provider (p=0.12), and patient's race (p=0.12) were not predictors of AR. Conclusion: Among patients with CVD and LDL-C above guideline recommended levels, only one-third receive AR. Diabetic and hypertensive CVD patients are more likely to receive AR, whereas older Veterans with CVD receive AR less often likely reflecting providers' belief of lack of efficacy from treatment intensification in older CVD patients. Our findings are important for quality improvement and policy making initiatives as they provide more actionable information compared with isolated LDL-C goal attainment as a quality indicator.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".