Cited by 107Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthClinical practice guidelines implementationCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics

Adoption of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Management Guideline in Cardiology Practices Nationwide

Open access
Pokharel, Yashashwi, Tang, Fengming, Jones, Philip G., Nambi, Vijay, Bittner, Vera A., Hira, Ravi S., Nasir, Khurram, Chan, Paul S. +8 more·2017·JAMA Cardiology

Abstract

Importance: The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Cholesterol Management Guideline recommends moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin therapy in eligible patients. Objective: To examine adoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline in US cardiology practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: Among 161 cardiology practices, trends in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) were analyzed before (September 1, 2012, to November 1, 2013) and after (February 1, 2014, to April 1, 2015) publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline among 4 mutually exclusive risk groups within the ACC Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry. Interrupted time series analysis was used to evaluate for differences in trend in use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT use in hierarchical logistic regression models. Participants were a population-based sample of 1 105 356 preguideline patients (2 431 192 patient encounters) and 1 116 472 postguideline patients (2 377 219 patient encounters). Approximately 97% of patients had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Exposures: Moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT use before and after publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time trend in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT. Results: In the study cohort, the mean (SD) age was 69.6 (12.1) years among 1 105 356 patients (40.2% female) before publication of the guideline and 70.0 (11.9) years among 1 116 472 patients (39.8% female) after publication of the guideline. Although there was a trend toward increasing use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins overall and in the ASCVD cohort, such a trend was already present before publication of the guideline. No significant difference in trend in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins was observed in other groups. The use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin therapy was 62.1% (before publication of the guideline) and 66.6% (after publication of the guideline) in the overall cohort, 62.7% (before publication) and 67.0% (after publication) in the ASCVD cohort, 50.6% (before publication) and 52.3% (after publication) in the cohort with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (ie, ≥190 mg/dL), 52.4% (before publication) and 55.2% (after publication) in the diabetes cohort, and 41.9% (before publication) and 46.9% (after publication) in the remaining group with 10-year ASCVD risk of 7.5% or higher. In hierarchical logistic regression models, there was a significant increase in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins in the overall cohort (4.8%) and in the ASCVD cohort (4.3%) (P < .01 for slope for both). There was no significant change for other risk cohorts. Nonstatin LLT use remained unchanged in the preguideline and postguideline periods in the hierarchical logistic regression models for all of the risk groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Adoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA Cholesterol Management Guideline in cardiology practices was modest. Timely interventions are needed to improve guideline-concordant practice to reduce the burden of ASCVD.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamacardio.2016.5922

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Another study of US patients eligible for treatment based on current guidelines reported that 53% of patients treated in cardiology practices were not taking a statin.

    “Another study of US patients eligible for treatment based on current guidelines reported that 53% of patients treated in cardiology practices were not taking a statin.16”

    From Bempedoic Acid for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Statin-Intolerant Patients (2023) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Results report statin-treatment gaps among guideline-eligible patients in US cardiology practices. But the figure closest to 53% is the complement of the 46.9% receiving moderate- or high-intensity statins in one risk subgroup—not the percentage of all eligible patients taking no statin. The Discussion separately identifies eligible patients who received no statin, without giving the claimed 53% figure. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pokharel, Y., Tang, F., Jones, P. G., Nambi, V., Bittner, V. A., Hira, R. S., Nasir, K., Chan, P. S., Maddox, T. M., Oetgen, W. J., Heidenreich, P. A., Borden, W. B., Spertus, J. A., Petersen, L. A., Ballantyne, C. M., & Virani, S. S.
Affiliations
  • Saint Luke's Hospital (US)
  • Department of Cardiovascular Research, Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri
  • Houston Methodist (US)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Center for Prevention and Wellness Research, Miami Beach, Florida
  • Denver VA Medical Center (US)
  • American College of Cardiology (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • George Washington University (US)
  • Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Virani, Salim S.
Venue
JAMA Cardiology
Published
2017-04-01
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
361
ISSN
2380-6583 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2592054892
Cited by
107
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 15
FWCI
15.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eCommons - AKU (Aga Khan University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL123980, T32HL110837)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Keywords
guideline adoption, statin therapy, non-statin lipid-lowering therapy, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular risk groups, cardiology practice, guideline implementation, cholesterol management, prescribing trends, cardiovascular disease prevention, hypercholesterolemia, dyslipidemia
MeSH terms
Aged, American Heart Association, Cardiology, Cardiovascular Diseases, Cholesterol, Female, Humans, Male, Registries, Retrospective Studies, United States, Biomarkers, Incidence, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Risk Assessment, Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors, Disease Management, Guideline Adherence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review