Real-World Management of Hyperkalemia in the Emergency Department: An Electronic Medical Record Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Hyperkalemia is often managed in the emergency department (ED) and it is important to understand how ED management and post-discharge outcomes vary by hyperkalemia severity. This study was conducted to characterize ED management and post-discharge outcomes across hyperkalemia severities. METHODS: Adults with an ED visit with hyperkalemia (at least one serum potassium lab measure above 5.0 mEq/L) were selected from US electronic medical record data (2012-2018). Patient characteristics, potassium levels, treatments, and monitoring prior to and during the ED visit were compared by hyperkalemia severity (mild [> 5.0-5.5 mEq/L], moderate [> 5.5-6.0], severe [> 6.0]) using unadjusted analyses. Death, immediate inpatient admission, 30-day hyperkalemia recurrence, and 30-day inpatient admission were also assessed by severity. RESULTS: Of 6222 patients included, 4432 (71.2%) had mild hyperkalemia, 1085 (17.4%) had moderate, and 705 (11.3%) had severe hyperkalemia. Chronic kidney disease (39.9-50.1%) and heart failure (21.6-24.3%) were common. In the ED, electrocardiograms (mild, 56.5%; moderate, 69.6%; severe, 81.0%) and patients with at least two potassium laboratory values increased with severity (15.0%; 40.4%; 75.5%). Among patients with at least two potassium laboratory values, over half of patients (60.4%) had potassium levels ≤ 5.0 mEq/L prior to discharge. Use of potassium-binding treatments (sodium polystyrene sulfonate: mild = 4.1%; moderate = 17.1%; severe = 27.4%), temporizing agents (5.6%; 15.5%; 31.6%), or dialysis (0.4%; 0.8%; 3.0%) increased with severity; treatment at discharge was not common. Death (1.1%; 3.7%; 10.6%), immediate admission to inpatient care (5.8%; 8.7%; 12.7%), 30-day hyperkalemia recurrence (2.9%; 19.0%; 32.5%), 30-day inpatient admission with hyperkalemia (6.5%; 7.9%; 9.3%) also increased with severity. CONCLUSION: Patients with moderate and severe hyperkalemia experienced elevated risk of hyperkalemia recurrence and hyperkalemia-related inpatient readmission following discharge from the ED from a descriptive analysis. Future research to assess strategies to reduce hyperkalemia recurrence and inpatient admission in this patient population would be beneficial.

Determinants of Hyperkalemia Progression Among Patients with Mild Hyperkalemia.

INTRODUCTION: The progression of mild hyperkalemia and the predictors of progression have not been well characterized. In this study we aimed to characterize the progression of hyperkalemia and identify the risk factors for hyperkalemia progression. METHODS: Adults with mild hyperkalemia (at least one serum potassium measure > 5.0 and ≤ 5.5 mEq/L) were identified using electronic medical records from the Research Action for Health Network (2012-2018). Progression to moderate-to-severe and progression to severe hyperkalemia were defined as the first occurrences of a serum potassium measure > 5.5 and > 6.0 mEq/L, respectively. Kaplan-Meier analyses were conducted to estimate progression rates for all patients and by pre-specified patient subgroups. Hazard ratios (HR) of moderate-to-severe and severe hyperkalemia progression were estimated using Cox models. RESULTS: Of 35,369 patients with mild hyperkalemia, 16.9% and 8.7% progressed to moderate-to-severe and severe hyperkalemia, respectively. Rates of hyperkalemia progression elevated with the severity of chronic kidney disease (CKD). The highest progression rates were seen in patients with CKD stage 5 (stage 5 vs. no CKD: moderate-to-severe, 50.2% vs. 12.0%; severe, 31.3% vs. 3.9%; p < 0.001). Higher progression rates were also observed in patients with heart failure, hypertension, and type II diabetes compared with patients without those conditions (all p < 0.001). The most prominent risk factors were CKD stage 5 (HR of progression to moderate-to-severe hyperkalemia, 3.32 [95% CI 3.03-3.64]; severe, 4.08 [3.55-4.69]), CKD stage 4 (2.19 [1.97-2.43], 2.28 [1.92-2.71]), CKD stage 3 (1.57 [1.46-1.68], 1.65 [1.46-1.87]), type I diabetes (1.37 [1.18-1.61], 1.54 [1.23-1.93]), and serum potassium (1.12 [1.10-1.15], 1.13 [1.10-1.17] per 0.1 mEq/L increase) (all p values < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Hyperkalemia progression rates increased significantly with CKD stage and were also higher among patients with higher baseline potassium level, heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes.

Prevalence of Metabolic Acidosis Among Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease and Hyperkalemia.

INTRODUCTION: Although hyperkalemia and metabolic acidosis often co-occur in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), the prevalence of metabolic acidosis among patients with CKD and hyperkalemia is understudied. Therefore, we used medical record data from the Research Action for Health Network to estimate this prevalence. METHODS: Adult patients with CKD stage 3-5, ≥ 1 outpatient potassium value > 5.0 mEq/l, and ≥ 1 outpatient bicarbonate value available were identified. Patients with end stage kidney disease (ESKD) in the prior year were excluded. The prevalence of metabolic acidosis in each calendar year from 2014 to 2017 among patients with CKD and hyperkalemia was estimated using two definitions of hyperkalemia (potassium > 5.0 mEq/l and > 5.5 mEq/l) and metabolic acidosis (bicarbonate < 18 mEq/l and < 22 mEq/l). RESULTS: In the 2017 patient cohort and among patients with CKD and hyperkalemia, patients with metabolic acidosis were younger (69 versus 74 years), more likely to have advanced CKD (35% versus 13%), and use oral sodium bicarbonate (21% versus 4%) than patients without metabolic acidosis. The prevalence of metabolic acidosis (< 22 mEq/l) ranged from 25 to 29% when hyperkalemia was defined by potassium > 5.0 mEq/l and ranged from 33 to 39% when hyperkalemia was defined by potassium > 5.5 mEq/l. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrated that prevalence estimates of metabolic acidosis varied based on the definition of hyperkalemia and metabolic acidosis utilized.

LDL cholesterol levels after switch from atorvastatin to rosuvastatin.

OBJECTIVE: Initial statin therapy may not always adequately reduce elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Although alternative therapies are available, switching to another statin may be beneficial, especially for those at highest risk of cardiovascular disease and events. This study examined changes in LDL-C levels following a switch from 40/80 mg of atorvastatin (ATV) to 20/40 mg of rosuvastatin (RSV). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from the MarketScan administrative claims databases linked to laboratory values. Patients with or at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who switched from ATV 40/80 mg to RSV 20/40 mg and had LDL-C values measured within 90 days before and 30-180 days after the switch were included. The change in LDL-C was quantified for each patient and summarized across all patients and within each switch pattern (e.g. ATV40 to RSV20). RESULTS: There was a significant mean (SD) decrease in LDL-C of 21% (30%) across the whole sample (N = 136) after switching from ATV to RSV. The greatest decrease occurred in patients who switched from ATV40 to RSV40 (N = 20; -29% [19%]; p < .001). Similar changes were observed overall and within each switch pattern when the analysis was limited to patients who were persistent on RSV in the post-switch period (N = 112; -24% [24%]; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Switching from ATV to RSV was associated with a significant decrease in LDL-C among high-risk patients. Switching between these two high-intensity statins may offer a viable alternative to other treatment modifications aimed at lowering LDL-C in this population.

Initiation Patterns of Statins in the 2 Years After Release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Cholesterol Management Guideline in a Large US Health Plan.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to characterize changes in statin utilization patterns in patients newly initiated on therapy in the 2 years following the release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) cholesterol management guideline in a large US health plan population. METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective, observational study used administrative medical and pharmacy claims data to identify patients newly initiated on statin therapy over 4 quarters prior to and 8 quarters following the release of the guideline (average N/quarter=3596). Patients were divided into the 4 statin benefit groups (SBGs) based on risk factors and laboratory lipid levels as defined in the guideline: SBG1 (with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD]; N=1046/quarter), SBG2 (without ASCVD, with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥190 mg/dL; N=454/quarter), SBG3 (without ASCVD, aged 40-75 years, with diabetes mellitus, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol 70-189 mg/dL; N=1391/quarter), SBG4 (no ASCVD or diabetes mellitus, age 40-75 years, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol 70-189 mg/dL, estimated 10-year ASCVD risk of ≥7.5%; N=705/quarter). Demographic variables, statin utilization patterns, lipid levels, and comorbidities were analyzed for pre- and postguideline periods. Postguideline, gradually increased high-intensity statin initiation occurred in SBG1, SBG2, and in SBG3 patients with 10-year ASCVD risk ≥7.5%. Moderate- to high-intensity statin initiation gradually increased among SBG4 patients. Recommended-intensity statin choice changed to a greater degree among patients treated by specialty care physicians. Regarding sex, target-intensity statin initiation was lower in women in all groups before and after guideline release. CONCLUSIONS: Prescriber implementation of the guideline recommendations has gradually increased, with the most marked change in the increased initiation of high-intensity statins in patients with ASCVD and in those treated by a specialist.

Effect of Combination Cholesterol-Lowering Therapy and Triglyceride-Lowering Therapy on Medical Costs in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

High triglyceride (TG) levels among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) are associated with higher medical costs. We analyzed the economic impact of TG-lowering therapies and whether the association between medical costs and therapy differed according to TG reduction. We conducted an observational cohort study of 184,932 patients with diabetes mellitus who had a TG measurement between January 2012 and June 2013 and a second TG measurement 3 to 15 months later. We identified 4 therapy groups (statin monotherapy, TG-specific monotherapy, statin/TG-specific combination therapy, or no therapy) and stratified those groups by percent change in TG (increased ≥5%, change of ≤4.9%, decreased 5% to 29%, decreased ≥30%). We compared change in medical costs between the year before and after therapy, adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics. Of the 184,932 total patients, 143,549 (77.6%) received statin monotherapy, 900 (0.5%) received TG-specific monotherapy, 1,956 (1.1%) received statin and TG-specific combination therapy, and 38,527 (20.8%) received no prescription lipid agents. After covariate adjustment, statin/TG-specific agent recipients had a mean 1-year total cost reduction of $1,110. The greatest cost reduction was seen among statin/TG-specific combination therapy patients who reduced TG levels by ≥30% (-$2,859). Statin monotherapy patients who reduced TG by ≥30% also had a large reduction in adjusted costs (-$1,079). In conclusion, we found a substantial economic benefit to treating diabetic patients with statin/TG-specific combination lipid therapy compared with monotherapy of either type or no lipid pharmacotherapy. A TG reduction of ≥30% produced a particularly large reduction in 1-year medical costs.

Statins in Chronic Kidney Disease: When and When Not to Use Them.

This supplement reviews the evidence from clinical trials for the appropriate use of statins in patients with Chronic kidney disease (CKD).

The clinical relevance of omega-3 fatty acids in the management of hypertriglyceridemia.

Hypertriglyceridemia (triglycerides > 150 mg/dL) affects ~25 % of the United States (US) population and is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Severe hypertriglyceridemia (≥ 500 mg/dL) is also a risk factor for pancreatitis. Three omega-3 fatty acid (OM3FA) prescription formulations are approved in the US for the treatment of adults with severe hypertriglyceridemia: (1) OM3FA ethyl esters (OM3EE), a mixture of OM3FA ethyl esters, primarily eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) (Lovaza®, Omtryg™, and generics); (2) icosapent ethyl (IPE), EPA ethyl esters (Vascepa®); and (3) omega-3 carboxylic acids (OM3CA), a mixture of OM3FAs in free fatty acid form, primarily EPA, DHA, and docosapentaenoic acid (Epanova®). At approved doses, all formulations substantially reduce triglyceride and very-low-density lipoprotein levels. DHA-containing formulations may also increase low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. However, this is not accompanied by increased non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, which is thought to provide a better indication of cardiovascular risk in this patient population. Proposed mechanisms of action of OM3FAs include inhibition of diacylglycerol acyltransferase, increased plasma lipoprotein lipase activity, decreased hepatic lipogenesis, and increased hepatic ß-oxidation. OM3CA bioavailability (area under the plasma concentration-time curve from zero to the last measurable concentration) is up to 4-fold greater than that of OM3FA ethyl esters, and unlike ethyl esters, the absorption of OM3CA is not dependent on pancreatic lipase hydrolysis. All three formulations are well tolerated (the most common adverse events are gastrointestinal) and demonstrate a lack of drug-drug interactions with other lipid-lowering drugs, such as statins and fibrates. OM3FAs appear to be an effective treatment option for patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia.

A Comparison of Statin Therapies in Hypercholesterolemia in Women: A Subgroup Analysis of the STELLAR Study.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality in women in the United States. Aggressive treatment of modifiable risk factors (e.g., hypercholesterolemia) is essential in reducing disease burden. Despite guidelines recommending the use of statin treatment in hypercholesterolemic women, this patient group is often undertreated. This subgroup analysis of the Statin Therapies for Elevated Lipid Levels compared Across doses to Rosuvastatin (STELLAR) trial examines the effects of statin therapy in hypercholesterolemic women. METHODS: As part of the STELLAR trial, 1,146 women with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C ≥160 and <250 mg/dL) and triglycerides <400 mg/dL were randomized to rosuvastatin 10-40 mg, atorvastatin 10-80 mg, simvastatin 10-80 mg, or pravastatin 10-40 mg for 6 weeks. RESULTS: LDL-C reduction with rosuvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 10 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, and pravastatin 40 mg was 49%, 39%, 37%, and 30%, respectively, after 6 weeks. High-intensity statins (rosuvastatin 20-40 mg and atorvastatin 40-80 mg) reduced LDL-C to the greatest extent: 53% with rosuvastatin 20 mg, 57% with rosuvastatin 40 mg, 47% with atorvastatin 40 mg, and 51% with atorvastatin 80 mg. Similar results were observed for non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C). Increases in HDL-C were greater with rosuvastatin across doses than with other statins. All treatments were well tolerated, with similar safety profiles across dose ranges. CONCLUSIONS: Statin therapies in the STELLAR trial led to reductions in LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and triglycerides and increases in HDL-C among hypercholesterolemic women, with rosuvastatin providing the greatest reductions in LDL-C and non-HDL-C.

Renal effects of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin in patients with diabetes who have progressive renal disease (PLANET I): a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of lipid-lowering treatments in renoprotection for patients with diabetes is debated. We studied the renal effects of two statins in patients with diabetes who had proteinuria. METHODS: PLANET I was a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial done in 147 research centres in Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Romania, and the USA. We enrolled patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes aged 18 years or older with proteinuria (urine protein:creatinine ratio [UPCR] 500-5000 mg/g) and taking stable angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or both. We randomly assigned participants to atorvastatin 80 mg, rosuvastatin 10 mg, or rosuvastatin 40 mg for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 52 of mean UPCR in each treatment group. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00296374. FINDINGS: We enrolled 353 patients: 118 were assigned to rosuvastatin 10 mg, 124 to rosuvastatin 40 mg, and 111 to atorvastatin 80 mg; of these, 325 were included in the intention-to-treat population. UPCR baseline:week 52 ratio was 0·87 (95% CI 0·77-0·99; p=0·033) with atorvastatin 80 mg, 1·02 (0·88-1·18; p=0·83) with rosuvastatin 10 mg, and 0·96 (0·83-1·11; p=0·53) with rosuvastatin 40 mg. In a post-hoc analysis to compare statins, we combined data from PLANET I with those from PLANET II (a similar randomised parallel study of 237 patients with proteinuria but without diabetes; registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00296400). In this analysis, atorvastatin 80 mg lowered UPCR significantly more than did rosuvastatin 10 mg (-15·6%, 95% CI -28·3 to -0·5; p=0·043) and rosuvastatin 40 mg (-18·2%, -30·2 to -4·2; p=0·013). Adverse events occurred in 69 (60%) of 116 patients in the rosuvastatin 10 mg group versus 79 (64%) of 123 patients in the rosuvastatin 40 mg group versus 63 (57%) of 110 patients in the atorvastatin 80 mg group; renal events occurred in nine (7·8%) versus 12 (9·8%) versus five (4·5%). INTERPRETATION: Despite high-dose rosuvastatin lowering plasma lipid concentrations to a greater extent than did high-dose atorvastatin, atorvastatin seems to have more renoprotective effects for the studied chronic kidney disease population. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Statin treatment patterns and clinical profile of patients with risk factors for coronary heart disease defined by National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical characteristics, statin treatment patterns and adherence among patients at different risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) as defined by National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III guidelines. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years old with ≥ 1 claim for dyslipidemia, ≥ 1 statin claim, or ≥ 1 LDL-C value ≥ 100 mg/dL were identified from 1 January 2007 to 31 July 2012. Patients were classified as low risk (LR) (0-1 risk factor: hypertension, age ≥ 45 years [men] or ≥ 55 years [women], or low HDL-C), moderate/moderately high risk (MR) (≥ 2 risk factors), high risk (HR) (CHD or CHD risk equivalent), or very high risk (VHR) (acute coronary syndrome, or established cardiovascular disease plus diabetes or metabolic syndrome). Medication use and lipid levels during the 12 months before and statin use during the 6 months after index were compared across risk groups. RESULTS: There were 1,524,351 LR, 242,357 MR, 188,222 HR, and 57,469 VHR patients identified. Statin use was observed in 15% of all patients, but was higher in the VHR group (45%) versus LR (12%), MR (18%), and HR (29%) groups. Simvastatin accounted for 50%-52% of all statin use, and average statin dose was higher among VHR patients compared with all other groups. Adherence was low overall (mean proportion of days covered [PDC]: 0.57), but higher among VHR (0.69) versus others (mean PDC: 0.55, 0.59, and 0.59 in LR, MR, and HR groups, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Statin treatment was low across all risk groups, and VHR patients had higher doses and better adherence compared with other risk groups. However, adherence was not optimal, indicating a potential limited benefit from statin treatment.

Renal safety of intensive cholesterol-lowering treatment with rosuvastatin: a retrospective analysis of renal adverse events among 40,600 participants in the rosuvastatin clinical development program.

OBJECTIVE: Intensive lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) with statins reduces cardiovascular risk but can cause liver-, muscle-, and possibly renal-related adverse events (AEs). We assessed the effects of rosuvastatin on the risk of developing renal impairment or renal failure among participants in the rosuvastatin clinical development program. METHODS: The analysis was based on AE data reported by investigators from 36 studies that included 40,600 participants who did not have advanced, pre-existing renal disease. Rates of renal AEs were determined based on time to first occurrence of renal impairment or renal failure. RESULTS: Renal impairment or renal failure was reported in 536 study participants during 72,488 patient-years of follow-up. Renal event rates were higher in patients with history of heart failure (n = 5011), hypertension (n = 21,864), diabetes (n = 5165), or estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (n = 9507) at baseline but did not differ with rosuvastatin compared with placebo or with rosuvastatin 40 mg compared with rosuvastatin 10mg. Relative risk (RR) estimates obtained from pooled analysis of placebo-controlled trials were RR: 1.03 (95% CI: 0.86-1.23, p = 0.777) for any reported renal impairment or renal failure event, RR: 1.02 (95% CI: 0.76-1.37, p = 0.894) for serious renal AEs, and RR: 0.70 (95% CI: 0.36-1.35, p = 0.282) for renal AEs leading to death. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that intensive LDL-C-lowering treatment with rosuvastatin does not affect the risk of developing renal insufficiency or renal failure in patients who do not have advanced, pre-existing renal disease.

Effect of tesaglitazar, a dual PPAR alpha/gamma agonist, on glucose and lipid abnormalities in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 12-week dose-ranging trial.

OBJECTIVE: The Glucose and Lipid Assessment in Diabetes (GLAD) trial examined the dose-response relationship of the dual peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) alpha/gamma agonist tesaglitazar in type 2 diabetic patients. STUDY DESIGN: GLAD was a 12-week, multicenter, international, randomized, parallel-group trial. Five-hundred men and women aged 30-80 years with type 2 diabetes (fasting plasma glucose [FPG] > or = 126 mg/dL [> or = 7.0 mmol/L]) received once-daily, double-blind placebo or tesaglitazar (0.1 mg, 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg, 2.0 mg, or 3.0 mg) or open-label pioglitazone (45 mg), included as a therapeutic benchmark. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Placebo-corrected changes from baseline in FPG (primary end point), plasma lipids, and insulin-resistance measures. RESULTS: At baseline, the mean patient age was 56.1 years, 57.5 years, and 58.9 years for placebo, across tesaglitazar groups, and for pioglitazone, respectively. For the corresponding groups, mean body mass index was 30.6 kg/m2, 30.9 kg/m2, and 29.7 kg/m2, and mean HbA1c was 7.0%, 7.2%, and 7.0%, respectively. At 12 weeks, tesaglitazar 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg, 2.0 mg, and 3.0 mg produced statistically significant reductions in FPG (-30.3 mg/dL, -41.1 mg/dL, -55.0 mg/dL, -60.9 mg/dL; p < 0.0001), triglycerides (-17.2%, -32.9%, -41.0%, -40.9%; p < 0.01), and apolipoprotein B (-15.0%, -15.7%, -21.0%, -22.3%, respectively; p < 0.0001). Tesaglitazar at doses > or = 1.0 mg significantly increased high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) (15.0%, 13.0%, 12.9%; p < 0.001), and reduced non-HDL-C (-13.2%, -22.2%, -25.0%; p < 0.0001), very-low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (VLDL-C) (-36.9%, -49.8%, -52.5%; p < 0.0001), and total cholesterol (-6.8%, -14.1%, -15.5%, respectively; p < 0.01). Tesaglitazar > or = 0.5 mg improved insulin-resistance measures. Although no formal statistical analyses were performed between active treatments, improvements in efficacy measures with tesaglitazar 1.0 mg were numerically similar to or greater than those with pioglitazone. Similar numbers of adverse events occurred in the tesaglitazar < or = 1.0 mg, placebo, and pioglitazone arms, but there was an increasing frequency of discontinuations due to pre-specified hematologic and clinical-chemistry criteria with tesaglitazar doses > or = 1.0 mg. CONCLUSIONS: In type 2 diabetic patients, tesaglitazar dose-dependently reduced FPG levels at doses > or = 0.5 mg. Other markers of glycemic control, atherogenic dyslipidemia, and measures associated with insulin resistance were improved at doses > or = 0.5 mg or > or = 1.0 mg. Study limitations included that the majority of patients were white, patients had good glycemic control at baseline, and the increased number of early withdrawals in the tesaglitazar 2.0 mg and 3.0 mg doses limits conclusions about the efficacy of these doses. The 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg tesaglitazar doses were identified for further investigation.

Comparisons of tailored mammography interventions at two months postintervention.

The recent decrease in breast cancer mortality has been linked in part to increased breast cancer screening. Although the percentage of women screened once is rising, rate of continued adherence is poor. The purpose of this article is to assess the effects of tailored mammography interventions implemented prospectively in a factorial design contrasting groups receiving either (a) usual care (no intervention), (b) tailored telephone counseling for mammography, (c) tailored mailed materials promoting mammography, or (d) a combination of tailored mail and telephone counseling. This prospective, randomized study with a 2 x 2 factorial design included women 51 years and older (N = 1,367) who were not adherent with mammography at baseline. The intervention is based on integration of the Transtheoretical and Health Belief Models. Participants were enrolled in one of two health maintenance organizations or seen in a university-related primary care clinic. Baseline data were collected on mammography history and beliefs and knowledge related to mammography. Data were collected via telephone interviews using previously developed scales. The follow-up interviewers were conducted with 976 women. The sample was 41% White, 56% African American, and 3% other. Mean age at baseline was 66.5. Logistic regression indicates that postintervention mammography status in all three intervention groups was significantly better than usual care, with odds ratios ranging from 1.66 (telephone only) to 2.16 (telephone plus mail).