P652Lower use of statins among patients with peripheral artery disease compared with those with coronary heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Adults with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are recommended to take a statin to reduce their risk for future cardiovascular events. Prior studies suggest that statins are being taken by most adults with coronary heart disease (CHD). However, there are few data on the use of statins among adults with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Purpose To compare the use of statins among US adults with a history of PAD versus those with a history of CHD. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study among US adults ≥19 years of age with commercial or government health insurance who had a history of CHD or PAD as of December 31, 2014 (n=1,006,451, mean age 63 years, 47% male). We used pharmacy claims between January 1 and December 31, 2014 to identify use of any statin and of a high-intensity statin (i.e., atorvastatin 40–80 mg, rosuvastatin 20–40 mg, simvastatin 80 mg). Patients with a history of CHD without PAD (CHD only), both CHD and PAD, and PAD without CHD (PAD only) were analysed. Prevalence ratios for use of any statin and a high-intensity statin among those taking a statin were calculated after multivariable adjustment for sociodemographics and cardiovascular risk factors. Results Overall, 69.1% of patients included in the current analysis had CHD only, 21.4% had both CHD and PAD, and 9.5% had PAD only. Overall, 66.0%, 68.2% and 47.5% of patients with CHD only, CHD and PAD, and PAD only were taking a statin. After multivariable adjustment and compared to patients with CHD only, the prevalence ratio for statin use was 1.02 (95% CI 1.01, 1.02) for those with both CHD and PAD and 0.82 (95% CI 0.82, 0.83) for those with PAD only. Among patients taking a statin, 29.4% of those with CHD only, 28.6% of those with both CHD and PAD, and 17.3% of those with PAD only were taking a high-intensity dosage. Compared to patients with CHD only, the multivariable adjusted prevalence ratio for taking a high-intensity dosage was 1.05 (95% CI 1.04, 1.06) for those with both CHD and PAD and 0.71 (95% CI 0.70, 0.73) for those with PAD only. Conclusion Adults with PAD receive less intensive statin therapy compared with their counterparts who have CHD. Interventions aimed to increase statin use among patients with PAD are warranted. Acknowledgement/Funding This study was supported through a research grant from Amgen, Inc. (Thousand Oaks, CA, USA).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".