Prevalence of Statin Use for Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease by Race, Ethnicity, and 10-Year Disease Risk in the US: National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 2013 to March 2020.

Importance: The burden of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in the US is higher among Black and Hispanic vs White adults. Inclusion of race in guidance for statin indication may lead to decreased disparities in statin use. Objective: To evaluate prevalence of primary prevention statin use by race and ethnicity according to 10-year ASCVD risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: This serial, cross-sectional analysis performed in May 2022 used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a nationally representative sample of health status in the US, from 2013 to March 2020 (limited cycle due to the COVID-19 pandemic), to evaluate statin use for primary prevention of ASCVD and to estimate 10-year ASCVD risk. Participants aged 40 to 75 years without ASCVD, diabetes, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels 190 mg/dL or greater, and with data on medication use were included. Exposures: Self-identified race and ethnicity (Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White) and 10-year ASCVD risk category (5%-<7.5%, 7.5%-<20%, ≥20%). Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of statin use, defined as identification of statin use on pill bottle review. Results: A total of 3417 participants representing 39.4 million US adults after applying sampling weights (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [8.0] years; 1289 women [weighted percentage, 37.8%] and 2128 men [weighted percentage, 62.2%]; 329 Asian [weighted percentage, 4.2%], 1032 Black [weighted percentage, 12.7%], 786 Hispanic [weighted percentage, 10.1%], and 1270 White [weighted percentage, 73.0%]) were included. Compared with White participants, statin use was lower in Black and Hispanic participants and comparable among Asian participants in the overall cohort (Asian, 25.5%; Black, 20.0%; Hispanic, 15.4%; White, 27.9%) and within ASCVD risk strata. Within each race and ethnicity group, a graded increase in statin use was observed across increasing ASCVD risk strata. Statin use was low in the highest risk stratum overall with significantly lower rates of use among Black (23.8%; prevalence ratio [PR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98 vs White) and Hispanic participants (23.9%; PR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-0.99 vs White). Among other factors, routine health care access and health insurance were significantly associated with higher statin use in Black, Hispanic, and White adults. Prevalence of statin use did not meaningfully change over time by race and ethnicity or by ASCVD risk stratum. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, statin use for primary prevention of ASCVD was low among all race and ethnicity groups regardless of ASCVD risk, with the lowest use occurring among Black and Hispanic adults. Improvements in access to care may promote equitable use of primary prevention statins in Black and Hispanic adults.

Angiotensin II receptor blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use and COVID-19-related outcomes among US Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) may positively or negatively impact outcomes in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We investigated the association of ARB or ACEI use with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related outcomes in US Veterans with treated hypertension using an active comparator design, appropriate covariate adjustment, and negative control analyses. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this retrospective cohort study of Veterans with treated hypertension in the Veterans Health Administration (01/19/2020-08/28/2020), we compared users of (A) ARB/ACEI vs. non-ARB/ACEI (excluding Veterans with compelling indications to reduce confounding by indication) and (B) ARB vs. ACEI among (1) SARS-CoV-2+ outpatients and (2) COVID-19 hospitalized inpatients. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalization or mortality (outpatients) and all-cause mortality (inpatients). We estimated hazard ratios (HR) using propensity score-weighted Cox regression. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between exposure groups after weighting. Among outpatients, there were 5.0 and 6.0 primary outcomes per 100 person-months for ARB/ACEI (n = 2,482) vs. non-ARB/ACEI (n = 2,487) users (HR 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.99, median follow-up 87 days). Among outpatients who were ARB (n = 4,877) vs. ACEI (n = 8,704) users, there were 13.2 and 14.8 primary outcomes per 100 person-months (HR 0.91, 95%CI 0.86-0.97, median follow-up 85 days). Among inpatients who were ARB/ACEI (n = 210) vs. non-ARB/ACEI (n = 275) users, there were 3.4 and 2.0 all-cause deaths per 100 person months (HR 1.25, 95%CI 0.30-5.13, median follow-up 30 days). Among inpatients, ARB (n = 1,164) and ACEI (n = 2,014) users had 21.0 vs. 17.7 all-cause deaths, per 100 person-months (HR 1.13, 95%CI 0.93-1.38, median follow-up 30 days). CONCLUSIONS: This observational analysis supports continued ARB or ACEI use for patients already using these medications before SARS-CoV-2 infection. The novel beneficial association observed among outpatients between users of ARBs vs. ACEIs on hospitalization or mortality should be confirmed with randomized trials.

Barriers to emergency department usage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the public's likelihood of being willing to use an emergency department (ED) for urgent/emergent illness during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved, cross-sectional survey of a non-probability sample from Amazon Mechanical Turk was administered May 24-25, 2020. Change in self-reported willingness to use an ED before and during the pandemic (primary outcome) was assessed via McNemar's test; COVID-19 knowledge and perceptions were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: There were 855 survey participants (466 [54.5%] male; 699 [81.8%] White; median age 39). Proportion reporting likelihood to use the ED pre-pandemic (71% [604/855]) decreased significantly during the pandemic (49% [417/855]; P < 0.001); those unlikely to visit the ED increased significantly during the pandemic (41% [347/855] vs 22% [417/855], P < 0.001). Participants were unlikely to use the ED during the pandemic if they were unlikely to use it pre-pandemic (adjusted odds ratio, 4.55; 95% confidence interval, 3.09-6.7) or correctly answered more COVID-19 knowledge questions (adjusted odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.60). Furthermore, 23.4% (n = 200) of respondents believed the pandemic was not a serious threat to society. Respondents with higher COVID-19 knowledge scores were more likely to view the pandemic as serious (odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-1.82). CONCLUSIONS: This survey study investigated the public's willingness to use the ED during the COVID-19 pandemic. Only 49% of survey respondents were willing to visit the ED during a pandemic if they felt ill compared with 71% before the pandemic.