Abstract 16212: Sex-Based Statin Utilization and Cardiovascular Disease Outcomes: A Real World Secondary Prevention Cohort

Abstract only Introduction: Current guidelines recommend using high-intensity statins in patients with clinical ASCVD.However, real world adherence to GDSI use and recurrent events remains less known. Sex difference in statin use have been previously reported. We evaluated sex-based disparities in G...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inCirculation (New York, N.Y.) Vol. 148; no. Suppl_1
Main Authors Mumtaz, Maha, Hay, Eli, Zhu, Jianhui, Thoma, Floyd W, Koczo, Agnes, Reis, Steven, Saeed, Anum, Mulukutla, Suresh R
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published 07.11.2023
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Abstract only Introduction: Current guidelines recommend using high-intensity statins in patients with clinical ASCVD.However, real world adherence to GDSI use and recurrent events remains less known. Sex difference in statin use have been previously reported. We evaluated sex-based disparities in GDSI use and recurrent ASCVD outcomes in a large healthcare network. Methods: Using EMR, we assessed statin use and intensity amongst patients with established prior ASCVD events (MI, ischemic stroke/TIA) and PAD from 2010-2022. Statins were categorized into GDSI (high intensity), <gdsi (moderate="" or="" low="" intensity)="" or no statin use. Outcomes of interest included repeat MI, stroke/TIA and all-cause mortality. Incident rates (IR) and Cox regression hazard ratios (HR) of ASCVD outcomes were calculated across statin categories stratified by sex. Results: Amongst 45,949 patients,31% were women. Women had more diabetes (29% vs 24%) and higher LDL-C (94.9 ± 40.8 vs 87.6 ± 37.1 mg/dL) than men. During a follow-up period of 5 years, women were less likely to be started on GDSI (61.6% vs 65.8%, p<0.01) and achieve LDL-C<70mg/dL (41% vs and 49%, p<0.01) as compared to men. GDSI use lowered IRs for all outcomes in both sexes (Table 1). Women on GDSI had higher risk of MI (HR 1.21 [1.12-1.31)],stroke (1.21 [1.08-1.34] and mortality (1.12 [1.05-1.20]), all p<0.01) than men. Conclusions: In a contemporary cohort of secondary prevention patients, women were less likely to be prescribed GDSI than men and less likely to achieve guideline concordant LDL-C<70mg/dL. This was associated with a higher risk of recurrent ASCVD events in women as compared to men. More sex specific interventions are needed to ensure adequate preventive treatment for both sexes. Abbreviations: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), guideline directed statin intensity (GDSI), Electronic medical records (EMR),Myocardial Infarction (MI), Peripheral arterial disease (PAD), Transient Ischemic attack (TIA)
ISSN:0009-7322
1524-4539
DOI:10.1161/circ.148.suppl_1.16212