Browsing by Author "Pagidipati, Neha J"
Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Open Access Call to action: Understanding the differences in the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists.(American journal of preventive cardiology, 2023-03) Khedagi, Apurva; Hoke, Cara; Kelsey, Michelle; Coviello, Andrea; Jones, W Schuyler; Jackson, Larry R; Patel, Manesh R; McGarrah, Rob W; Pagidipati, Neha J; Shah, Nishant PCardiovascular disease remains one of the most prominent global health problems and has been demonstrated to disproportionally affect certain communities. Despite an increasing collective effort to improve health inequalities, a multitude of disparities continue to affect cardiovascular outcomes. Among the most prominent disparities within cardiovascular disease prevention are with the use and distribution of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Several landmark trials have demonstrated the efficacy of these novel agents, not only in cardiovascular disease prevention among those with diabetes, but also in heart failure and chronic kidney disease. However, the use of these agents remains limited by disparities in certain racial/ethnic, sex, and socioeconomic groups. This review works to highlight and understand these differences on the use and prescribing patterns of pivotal agents in cardiovascular disease prevention, SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists. Our aim is to enrich understanding and to inspire efforts to end disparities in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality due to race, sex and income inequality.Item Open Access Concordance With Screening and Treatment Guidelines for Chronic Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes.(JAMA network open, 2024-06) Edmonston, Daniel; Lydon, Elizabeth; Mulder, Hillary; Chiswell, Karen; Lampron, Zachary; Marsolo, Keith; Goss, Ashley; Ayoub, Isabelle; Shah, Raj C; Chang, Alexander R; Ford, Daniel E; Jones, W Schuyler; Fonesca, Vivian; Machineni, Sriram; Fort, Daniel; Butler, Javed; Hunt, Kelly J; Pitlosh, Max; Rao, Ajaykumar; Ahmad, Faraz S; Gordon, Howard S; Hung, Adriana M; Hwang, Wenke; Bosworth, Hayden B; Pagidipati, Neha JImportance
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an often-asymptomatic complication of type 2 diabetes (T2D) that requires annual screening to diagnose. Patient-level factors linked to inadequate screening and treatment can inform implementation strategies to facilitate guideline-recommended CKD care.Objective
To identify risk factors for nonconcordance with guideline-recommended CKD screening and treatment in patients with T2D.Design, setting, and participants
This retrospective cohort study was performed at 20 health care systems contributing data to the US National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. To evaluate concordance with CKD screening guidelines, adults with an outpatient clinician visit linked to T2D diagnosis between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, and without known CKD were included. A separate analysis reviewed prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] of 30-90 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio [UACR] of 200-5000 mg/g) and an outpatient clinician visit for T2D between October 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020. Data were analyzed from July 8, 2022, through June 22, 2023.Exposures
Demographics, lifestyle factors, comorbidities, medications, and laboratory results.Main outcomes and measures
Screening required measurement of creatinine levels and UACR within 15 months of the index visit. Treatment reflected prescription of ACEIs or ARBs and SGLT2 inhibitors within 12 months before or 6 months following the index visit.Results
Concordance with CKD screening guidelines was assessed in 316 234 adults (median age, 59 [IQR, 50-67] years), of whom 51.5% were women; 21.7%, Black; 10.3%, Hispanic; and 67.6%, White. Only 24.9% received creatinine and UACR screening, 56.5% received 1 screening measurement, and 18.6% received neither. Hispanic ethnicity was associated with lack of screening (relative risk [RR], 1.16 [95% CI, 1.14-1.18]). In contrast, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, and hypertension were associated with a lower risk of nonconcordance. In 4215 patients with CKD and albuminuria, 3288 (78.0%) received an ACEI or ARB; 194 (4.6%), an SGLT2 inhibitor; and 885 (21.0%), neither therapy. Peripheral arterial disease and lower eGFR were associated with lack of CKD treatment, while diuretic or statin prescription and hypertension were associated with treatment.Conclusions and relevance
In this cohort study of patients with T2D, fewer than one-quarter received recommended CKD screening. In patients with CKD and albuminuria, 21.0% did not receive an SGLT2 inhibitor or an ACEI or an ARB, despite compelling indications. Patient-level factors may inform implementation strategies to improve CKD screening and treatment in people with T2D.Item Open Access Effect of Once-Weekly Exenatide on Clinical Outcomes According to Baseline Risk in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Insights From the EXSCEL Trial.(Journal of the American Heart Association, 2018-10) Mentz, Robert J; Bethel, M Angelyn; Merrill, Peter; Lokhnygina, Yuliya; Buse, John B; Chan, Juliana C; Felício, João S; Goodman, Shaun G; Choi, Jasmine; Gustavson, Stephanie M; Iqbal, Nayyar; Lopes, Renato D; Maggioni, Aldo P; Öhman, Peter; Pagidipati, Neha J; Poulter, Neil R; Ramachandran, Ambady; Reicher, Barry; Holman, Rury R; Hernandez, Adrian F; EXSCEL Study GroupBackground In the EXSCEL (Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering), exenatide once-weekly resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events ( MACEs ) and a nominal 14% reduction in all-cause mortality in 14 752 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2 DM ) with and without cardiovascular disease. Whether patients at increased risk for events experienced a comparatively greater treatment benefit with exenatide is unknown. Methods and Results In the EXSCEL population, we created risk scores for MACEs and all-cause mortality using step-wise selection of baseline characteristics. A risk score was calculated for each patient, and a time-to-event model for each end point was developed including the risk score, treatment assignment, and risk-treatment interaction. Interaction P values evaluating for a differential treatment effect by baseline risk were reported. Over a median follow-up of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2, 4.4), 1091 (7.4%) patients died and 1744 (11.8%) experienced a MACE . Independent predictors of MACEs and all-cause mortality included age, sex, comorbidities (eg, previous cardiovascular event), body mass index, blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. The all-cause mortality and MACE risk models had modest discrimination with optimism-corrected c-indices of 0.73 and 0.71, respectively. No interaction was observed between treatment effect and risk profile for either end point (both interactions, P>0.1). Conclusions Baseline characteristics (eg, age, previous cardiovascular events) and routine laboratory values (eg, hemoglobin A1c, estimated glomerular filtration rate) provided modest prognostic value for mortality and MACEs in a broad population of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Exenatide's effects on mortality and MACEs were consistent across the spectrum of baseline risk. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 01144338.Item Open Access Effects of Once-Weekly Exenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes.(The New England journal of medicine, 2017-09) Holman, Rury R; Bethel, M Angelyn; Mentz, Robert J; Thompson, Vivian P; Lokhnygina, Yuliya; Buse, John B; Chan, Juliana C; Choi, Jasmine; Gustavson, Stephanie M; Iqbal, Nayyar; Maggioni, Aldo P; Marso, Steven P; Öhman, Peter; Pagidipati, Neha J; Poulter, Neil; Ramachandran, Ambady; Zinman, Bernard; Hernandez, Adrian F; EXSCEL Study GroupBackground
The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown.Methods
We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy.Results
In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups.Conclusions
Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo. (Funded by Amylin Pharmaceuticals; EXSCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01144338 .).Item Open Access Improving Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Review of Implementation Strategies.(Journal of cardiac failure, 2023-12) Harrington, Josephine; Rao, Vishal N; Leyva, Monica; Oakes, Megan; Mentz, Robert J; Bosworth, Hayden B; Pagidipati, Neha JDespite recent advances in guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), achievement of target GDMT utilization and up-titration to goal doses continue to be modest. In recent years, a number of different interventional approaches to improve GDMT have been published, but many are limited by single-center experiences with small sample sizes. However, strategies including use of multidisciplinary teams, dedicated GDMT titration algorithms, and clinician audit with feedback have shown promise. There remains a critical need for large, rigorous trials to assess the utility of different interventions to improve use and titration of GDMT in HFrEF. Here, we review existing literature in GDMT implementation for HFrEF, and discuss future directions and considerations within the field.Item Open Access Improving medication adherence in cardiovascular disease.(Nature reviews. Cardiology, 2024-01) Nelson, Adam J; Pagidipati, Neha J; Bosworth, Hayden BNon-adherence to medication is a global health problem with far-reaching individual-level and population-level consequences but remains unappreciated and under-addressed in the clinical setting. With increasing comorbidity and polypharmacy as well as an ageing population, cardiovascular disease and medication non-adherence are likely to become increasingly prevalent. Multiple methods for detecting non-adherence exist but are imperfect, and, despite emerging technology, a gold standard remains elusive. Non-adherence to medication is dynamic and often has multiple causes, particularly in the context of cardiovascular disease, which tends to require lifelong medication to control symptoms and risk factors in order to prevent disease progression. In this Review, we identify the causes of medication non-adherence and summarize interventions that have been proven in randomized clinical trials to be effective in improving adherence. Practical solutions and areas for future research are also proposed.Item Open Access International variation in characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure: Insights from TECOS.(American heart journal, 2019-12) Bhatt, Ankeet S; Luo, Nancy; Solomon, Nicole; Pagidipati, Neha J; Ambrosio, Giuseppe; Green, Jennifer B; McGuire, Darren K; Standl, Eberhard; Cornel, Jan H; Halvorsen, Sigrun; Lopes, Renato D; White, Harvey D; Holman, Rury R; Peterson, Eric D; Mentz, Robert J; TECOS Study GroupInternational differences in management/outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure (HF) are not well characterized. We sought to evaluate geographic variation in treatment and outcomes among these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 14,671 participants in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS), those with HF at baseline and a documented ejection fraction (EF) (N = 1591; 10.8%) were categorized by enrollment region (North America, Latin America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and Asia Pacific). Cox models were used to examine the association between geographic region and the primary outcome of all-cause mortality (ACM) or hospitalization for HF (hHF) in addition to ACM alone. Analyses were stratified by those with EF <40% or EF ≥40%. The majority of participants with HF were enrolled in Eastern Europe (53%). Overall, 1,267 (79.6%) had EF ≥40%. β-Blocker (83%) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (86%) use was high across all regions in patients with EF <40%. During a median follow-up of 2.9 years, Eastern European participants had lower rates of ACM/hHF compared with North Americans (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.32-0.64). These differences were seen only in the EF ≥40% subgroup and not the EF <40% subgroup. ACM was similar among Eastern European and North American participants (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.44-1.45). CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation exists in the clinical features and outcomes of HF patients across regions in TECOS. Patients from Eastern Europe had lower risk-adjusted ACM/hHF than those in North America, driven by those with EF ≥40%. These data may inform the design of future international trials.