Estimating the number of people with hepatitis C virus who have ever injected drugs and have yet to be diagnosed: an evidence synthesis approach for Scotland.

AIMS: To estimate the number of people who have ever injected drugs (defined here as PWID) living in Scotland in 2009 who have been infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) and to quantify and characterize the population remaining undiagnosed. METHODS: Information from routine surveillance (n=22616) and survey data (n=2511) was combined using a multiparameter evidence synthesis approach to estimate the size of the PWID population, HCV antibody prevalence and the proportion of HCV antibody prevalent cases who have been diagnosed, in subgroups defined by recency of injecting (in the last year or not), age (15-34 and 35-64 years), gender and region of residence (Greater Glasgow and Clyde and the rest of Scotland). RESULTS: HCV antibody-prevalence among PWID in Scotland during 2009 was estimated to be 57% [95% CI=52-61%], corresponding to 46657 [95% credible interval (CI)=33812-66803] prevalent cases. Of these, 27434 (95% CI=14636-47564) were undiagnosed, representing 59% [95% CI=43-71%] of prevalent cases. Among the undiagnosed, 83% (95% CI=75-89%) were PWID who had not injected in the last year and 71% (95% CI=58-85%) were aged 35-64 years. CONCLUSIONS: The number of undiagnosed hepatitis C virus-infected cases in Scotland appears to be particularly high among those who have injected drugs more than 1 year ago and are more than 35 years old

Pharmacotherapy Use in Older Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction Living in Skilled Nursing Facilities

Background: Little is known about the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and β-blockers among older adults with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). Methods: Using national data Minimum Data Set 3.0 cross-linked with Medicare data (2011-2012), we studied 31,675 patients with HFrEF (ICD-9 codes: 428.2 or 428.4) aged ≥65 years admitted to 9,659 SNFs. We estimated the prevalence of a Part D claim for ACEIs/ARBs or β-blockers during 3 months before the SNF stay and used log-binomial models to evaluate correlates of use by estimating prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: The median age of the study population was 83 years, 60% were women, and 10% and 4% were African Americans and Hispanics, respectively. Approximately 46% had ≥3 important risk factors for HFrEF. Fifty-seven percent received an ACEI/ARB and 47% a β-blocker; 25% received neither. Older age was inversely associated with receipt of these therapies: adjusted PRs were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96) for ACEIs/ARBs and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.84-0.89) for β-blockers for patients aged ≥85 years compared with those aged 65-74 years. Compared with Whites, use of these therapies was higher among African Americans (adjusted PRs were 1.07 [95% CI: 1.04-1.10] for ACEIs/ARBs and 1.11 [95% CI: 1.08-1.15] for β-blockers) and Hispanics (adjusted PRs were 1.13 [95% CI: 1.09-1.18] for ACEIs/ARBs and 1.12 [95% CI: 1.07-1.18] for β-blockers). The prevalence of ACEI/ARB use was greater in patients with ≥3 important risk factors than in those with ≤1 factor: adjusted PR was 1.16 (95% CI 1.13-1.19). Conclusions: Use of guideline-directed medications may be suboptimal in older patients with HFrEF receiving SNF care. Whether this is a result of adverse drug events from prior use or insufficient evidence in vulnerable populations needs to be examined. Acknowledgements: Lin Li has received funding from a National Institutes of Health Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award Institutional Research Training Grant (5T32HL120823-02

Statin use and adverse effects among adults \u3e 75 years of age: Insights from the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry

Background: Current statin use and symptoms among older adults in routine community practice have not been well characterized since the release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline. Methods and results: We compared statin use and dosing between adults \u3e75 and ≤75 years old who were eligible for primary or secondary prevention statin use without considering guideline-recommended age criteria. The patients were treated at 138 US practices in the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry in 2015. Patient surveys also evaluated reported symptoms while taking statins. Multivariable logistic regression models examined the association between older age and statin use and dosing. Among 6717 people enrolled, 1704 (25%) were \u3e75 years old. For primary prevention, use of any statin or high-dose statin did not vary by age group: any statin, 62.6% in those \u3e75 years old versus 63.1% in those ≤75 years old (P=0.83); high-dose statin, 10.2% versus 12.3% in the same groups (P=0.14). For secondary prevention, older patients were slightly less likely to receive any statin (80.1% versus 84.2% [P=0.003]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.01 [P=0.06]), but were much less likely to receive a high-intensity statin (23.5% versus 36.2% [PP=0.0001]). Among current statin users, older patients were slightly less likely to report any symptoms (41.3% versus 46.6%; P=0.003) or myalgias (27.3% versus 33.3%; Conclusions: Overall use of statins was similar for primary prevention in those aged \u3e75 years versus younger patients, yet older patients were less likely to receive high-intensity statins for secondary prevention. Statins appear to be similarly tolerated in older and younger adult

Patient-reported reasons for declining or discontinuing statin therapy: Insights from the PALM registry

Background: Many adults eligible for statin therapy for cardiovascular disease prevention are untreated. Our objective was to investigate patient‐reported reasons for statin underutilization, including noninitiation, refusal, and discontinuation.Methods and Results: This study included the 5693 adults recommended for statin therapy in the PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry. Patient surveys evaluated statin experience, reasons for declining or discontinuing statins, and beliefs about statins and cardiovascular disease risk. Overall, 1511 of 5693 adults (26.5%) were not on treatment. Of those not on a statin, 894 (59.2%) reported never being offered a statin, 153 (10.1%) declined a statin, and 464 (30.7%) had discontinued therapy. Women (relative risk: 1.22), black adults (relative risk: 1.48), and those without insurance (relative risk: 1.38) were most likely to report never being offered a statin. Fear of side effects and perceived side effects were the most common reasons cited for declining or discontinuing a statin. Compared with statin users, those who declined or discontinued statins were less likely to believe statins are safe (70.4% of current users vs. 36.9% of those who declined and 37.4% of those who discontinued) or effective (86.3%, 67.4%, and 69.1%, respectively). Willingness to take a statin was high; 67.7% of those never offered and 59.7% of patients who discontinued a statin would consider initiating or retrying a statin.Conclusions: More than half of patients eligible for statin therapy but not on treatment reported never being offered one by their doctor. Concern about side effects was the leading reason for statin refusal or discontinuation. Many patients were willing to reconsider statin therapy if offered

Measurement of low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in primary and secondary prevention patients: Insights from the PALM registry

Background The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults recommended testing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ( LDL -C) to identify untreated patients with LDL -C ≥190 mg/dL, assess lipid-lowering therapy adherence, and consider nonstatin therapy. We sought to determine whether clinician lipid testing practices were consistent with these guidelines. Methods and Results The PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry enrolled primary and secondary prevention patients from 140 US cardiology, endocrinology, and primary care offices in 2015 and captured demographic data, lipid treatment history, and the highest LDL -C level in the past 2 years. Core laboratory lipid levels were drawn at enrollment. Among 7627 patients, 2787 (36.5%) had no LDL -C levels measured in the 2 years before enrollment. Patients without chart-documented LDL -C levels were more often women, nonwhite, uninsured, and non-college graduates (all P\u3c0.01). Patients without prior lipid testing were less likely to receive statin treatment (72.6% versus 76.0%; P=0.0034), a high-intensity statin (21.5% versus 24.3%; P=0.016), nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy (24.8% versus 27.3%; P=0.037), and had higher core laboratory LDL -C levels at enrollment (median 97 versus 92 mg/dL; P\u3c0.0001) than patients with prior LDL -C testing. Of 166 individuals with core laboratory LDL -C levels ≥190 mg/dL, 36.1% had no LDL -C measurement in the prior 2 years, and 57.2% were not on a statin at the time of enrollment. Conclusions In routine clinical practice, LDL -C testing is associated with higher-intensity lipid-lowering treatment and lower achieved LDL -C level

Alirocumab in high-risk patients: Observations from the open-label expanded use program

BACKGROUND: The alirocumab expanded use program provided open-label access to alirocumab before its commercial availability to patients with severe hypercholesterolemia not controlled with maximally tolerated doses of standard-of-care lipid-lowering therapy. OBJECTIVE: To describe the safety and lipid-lowering efficacy of alirocumab in high-risk patients who were likely to be early users of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors after approval. METHODS: Patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) and/or coronary heart disease (CHD) and baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of ≥160 mg/dL on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy were enrolled and received alirocumab 150 mg every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. Patients were permitted use of all available statins; those not taking any dose of statin could also be enrolled. RESULTS: Of 100 enrolled patients, 93 were white, 62 were women, and overall mean age was 58 years; 61 had HeFH, 3 had unknown type of familial hypercholesterolemia, 66 had CHD, and 30 had both familial hypercholesterolemia and CHD. Sixty-four patients were identified by their providers to have some level of statin intolerance; of these, 47 were not on statin. Alirocumab reduced LDL-C on average from 221 mg/dL at baseline to 102 mg/dL by week 24 (-55%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were experienced in 61% of patients and treatment-emergent adverse events leading to permanent treatment discontinuation in 3% of patients; no deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Safety and efficacy observations from the open-label alirocumab expanded use program of very high-risk patients with HeFH and/or CHD and baseline LDL-C of ≥160 mg/dL uncontrolled by maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy were consistent with those in the placebo/ezetimibe-controlled ODYSSEY trials

A comparison of walk-in counselling and the wait list model for delivering counselling services

Background: Walk-in counselling has been used to reduce wait times but there are few controlled studies to compare outcomes between walk-in and the traditional model of service delivery. Aims: To compare change in psychological distress by clients receiving services from two models of service delivery, a walk-in counselling model and a traditional counselling model involving a wait list Method: Mixed methods sequential explanatory design including quantitative comparison of groups with one pre-test and two follow ups, and qualitative analysis of interviews with a subsample. 524 participants 16 years and older were recruited from two Family Counselling Agencies; the General Health Questionnaire assessed change in psychological distress; prior use of other mental health and instrumental services was also reported. Results: Hierarchical linear modelling revealed clients of the walk-in model improved faster and were less distressed at the 4-week follow-up compared to the traditional service delivery model. At the 10-week follow-up, both groups had improved and were similar. Participants receiving instrumental services prior to baseline improved more slowly. Qualitative interviews confirmed participants valued the accessibility of the walk-in model. Conclusions: This study improves methodologically on previous studies of walk-in counselling, an approach to service delivery that is not conducive to randomized controlled trials

Crossing the Dripline to 11N Using Elastic Resonance Scattering

The level structure of the unbound nucleus 11N has been studied by 10C+p elastic resonance scattering in inverse geometry with the LISE3 spectrometer at GANIL, using a 10C beam with an energy of 9.0 MeV/u. An additional measurement was done at the A1200 spectrometer at MSU. The excitation function above the 10C+p threshold has been determined up to 5 MeV. A potential-model analysis revealed three resonance states at energies 1.27 (+0.18-0.05) MeV (Gamma=1.44 +-0.2 MeV), 2.01(+0.15-0.05) MeV, (Gamma=0.84 +-$0.2 MeV) and 3.75(+-0.05) MeV, (Gamma=0.60 +-0.05 MeV) with the spin-parity assignments I(pi) =1/2+, 1/2- and 5/2+, respectively. Hence, 11N is shown to have a ground state parity inversion completely analogous to its mirror partner, 11Be. A narrow resonance in the excitation function at 4.33 (+-0.05) MeV was also observed and assigned spin-parity 3/2-.Comment: 14 pages, 9 figures, twocolumn Accepted for publication in PR

Intensity of lipid lowering with statin therapy in patients with cerebrovascular disease versus coronary artery disease: Insights from the PALM Registry

Background Current treatment guidelines strongly recommend statin therapy for secondary prevention. However, it remains unclear whether patients\u27 perceptions of cardiovascular risk, beliefs on cholesterol, or the intensity of prescribed statin therapy differs for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) versus cerebrovascular disease (CeVD) versus both CAD and CeVD (CAD&CeVD). Methods and Results The PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry collected data on statin use, intensity, and core laboratory low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels for 3232 secondary prevention patients treated at 133 US clinics. Among individuals with CeVD only (n=403), CAD only (n=2202), and CeVD&CAD (n=627), no significant differences were observed in patient-perceived cardiovascular disease risk, beliefs on cholesterol lowering, or perceived effectiveness and safety of statin therapy. However, patients with CeVD only were less likely to receive any statin therapy (76.2% versus 86.2%; adjusted odds ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.91), or guideline-recommended statin intensity (34.6% versus 50.4%; adjusted odds ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.45-0.81) than those with CAD only. Individuals with CeVD only were also less likely to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol \u3c100 mg/dL (59.2% versus 69.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.99) than individuals with CAD alone. There were no significant differences in the use of any statin therapy or guideline-recommended statin intensity between individuals with CAD&CeVD and those with CAD only. Conclusions Despite lack of significant differences in patient-perceived cardiovascular risk or statin beliefs, patients with CeVD were significantly less likely to receive higher intensity statin or achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol \u3c100 mg/dL than those with CAD only