Lipid testing trends in the us before and after the release of the 2013 cholesterol treatment guidelines

Background: The 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guidelines removed the recom-mendation to treat adults at risk of cardiovascular disease to goal levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). We anticipated that the frequency of LDL-C testing in clinical practice would decline as a result. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated the frequency of LDL-C testing before and after the guideline release. Methods: We used the MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims data (1/1/2007–12/31/2016) to identify four cohorts: 1) statin initiators (any intensity), 2) high-intensity statin initiators, 3) ezetimibe initiators, and 4) patients at very high cardiovascular risk (≥2 hospitalizations for myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke, with prevalent statin use). Rates of LDL-C testing by calendar year quarter were estimated for each cohort. To estimate rates in the absence of a guideline change, we fit a time-series model to the pre-guideline rates and extrapolated to the post-guideline period, adjusting for covariates, seasonality, and time trend. Results: Pre-and post-guideline rates (LDL-C tests per 1,000 persons per quarter) were 248 and 235, respectively, for 3.9 million statin initiators; 263 and 246 for 1.3 million high-intensity statin initiators; 277 and 261 for 323,544 ezetimibe initiators; and 180 and 158 for 42,108 very high-risk patients. For all cohorts, observed post-guideline rates were similar to model-predicted rates. On average, the difference between observed and predicted rates was 8.5 for patients initiating any statin; 2.6 for patients initiating a high-intensity statin; 11.4 for patients initiating ezetimibe, and −0.5 for high-risk patients. Conclusion: We observed no discernible impact of the release of the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines on LDL-C testing rates. Rather, there was a gradual decline in testing rates starting prior to the guideline change and continuing throughout the study period. Our findings suggest that the guidelines had little to no impact on use of LDL-C testing

A pro-inflammatory diet in people with multiple sclerosis is associated with an increased rate of relapse and increased FLAIR lesion volume on MRI in early multiple sclerosis: A prospective cohort study

First published online May 6, 2023Background: A pro-inflammatory diet has been posited to induce chronic inflammation within the central nervous system (CNS), and multiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory disease of the CNS. Objective: We examined whether Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII®)) scores are associated with measures of MS progression and inflammatory activity. Methods: A cohort with a first clinical diagnosis of CNS demyelination was followed annually (10 years, n=223). At baseline, 5- and 10-year reviews, DII and energy-adjusted DII (E-DIITM) scores were calculated (food frequency questionnaire) and assessed as predictors of relapses, annualised change in disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale) and two magnetic resonance imaging measures; fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) lesion volume and black hole lesion volume. Results: A more pro-inflammatory diet was associated with a higher relapse risk (highest vs. lowest E-DII quartile: hazard ratio=2.24, 95% confidence interval (CI)= −1.16, 4.33, p=0.02). When we limited analyses to those assessed on the same manufacturer of scanner and those with a first demyelinating event at study entry (to reduce error and disease heterogeneity), an association between E-DII score and FLAIR lesion volume was evident (β=0.38, 95% CI=0.04, 0.72, p=0.03). Conclusion: There is a longitudinal association between a higher DII and a worsening in relapse rate and periventricular FLAIR lesion volume in people with MS.Alice M Saul, Bruce V Taylor, Leigh Blizzard, Steve Simpson-Yap, Wendy H Oddy, Nittin Shivappa, James R Hébert, Lucinda J Black, Anne-Louise Ponsonby, Simon A Broadley, Jeanette Lechner-Scott and Ingrid van der Mei, Ausimmune, AusLong Investigators Grou

Using negative control outcomes to assess the comparability of treatment groups among women with osteoporosis in the United States

Purpose: In contrast to randomized clinical trials, comparative safety and effectiveness assessments of osteoporosis medications in clinical practice may be subject to confounding by indication. We used negative control outcomes to detect residual confounding when comparing osteoporosis medications. Methods: Using MarketScan Commercial and Supplemental claims, we identified women aged ≥55 years who initiated an oral bisphosphonate (BP) (risedronate, alendronate, or ibandronate), denosumab (an injected biologic), or intravenous zoledronic acid (ZA) from October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2015. Women with Paget's disease or cancer were excluded. We compared individual oral BPs to each other, denosumab to ZA, denosumab to oral BPs, and ZA to oral BPs, with respect to 11 negative control outcomes identified by subject matter experts. We estimated the 12-month cumulative risk difference (RD) using inverse probability of treatment and censoring weights. Results: Among 148 587 women, most initiated alendronate (57%), followed by ibandronate (12%), ZA (11%), risedronate (10%), and denosumab (10%). Compared with denosumab, patients initiating ZA had similar risks of all negative control outcomes. Compared with oral BPs, patients initiating denosumab had a higher risk of a wellness visit (RD = 1.2%, 95% CI: 0.4, 1.9) and a lower risk of receiving herpes zoster vaccine (RD = −0.6%, 95% CI: −1.1, −0.2). Comparing ZA with oral BP initiators resulted in two outcomes with positive associations. Conclusions: Caution is warranted when comparing injectable vs oral osteoporosis medications, given the potential for unmeasured confounding. Evaluating negative control outcomes could be a standard validity check prior to conducting comparative studies