Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentration has been established as an independent risk factor for the development of atherosclerosis; consequently, multiple practice guidelines recognize LDL-C as the primary target of therapy.1 and 2 For decades, considerable effort has been committed to educating physicians and the general public about the importance of lowering LDL-C levels.

Patients with heart failure (HF) are at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Studies of atherothrombotic treatments in this population have been disappointing to date. Icosapent ethyl reduced the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease among a broad array of statin‐treated patients at elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Whether the treatment benefits of icosapent ethyl are consistent among those with HF is unknown.

Background Patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at increased risk for recurrent cardiovascular events despite aggressive medical therapy. Methods and Results This post hoc analysis focused on the subset of patients with prior PCI enrolled in REDUCE‐IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial), a multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial of icosapent ethyl versus placebo. Icosapent ethyl was added to statins in patients with low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL and fasting triglycerides 135–499 mg/dL. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization. There were 8179 patients randomized in REDUCE‐IT followed for a median of 4.9 years, and 3408 (41.7%) of them had a prior PCI with a median follow‐up of 4.8 years. These patients were randomized a median of 2.9 years (11 days to 30.7 years) after PCI. Among patients treated with icosapent ethyl versus placebo, there was a 34% reduction in the primary composite end point (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58–0.76; P<0.001; number needed to treat4.8 years=12) and a 34% reduction in the key secondary composite end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56–0.79; P<0.001; NNT4.8 years=19) versus placebo. Similarly, large reductions occurred in total coronary revascularizations and revascularization subtypes. There was also a 39% reduction in total events (rate ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52–0.72; P<0.001). Conclusions Among patients treated with statins with elevated triglycerides and a history of prior PCI, icosapent ethyl substantially reduced the risk of recurrent events during an average of ~5 years of follow‐up with a number needed to treat of only 12.

Background: Clinically important medication errors are common after hospital discharge. They include preventable or ameliorable adverse drug events (ADEs), as well as medication discrepancies or nonadherence with high potential for future harm (potential ADEs). Objective: To determine the effect of a tailored intervention on the occurrence of clinically important medication errors after hospital discharge. Design: Randomized, controlled trial with concealed allocation and blinded outcome assessors. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00632021) Setting: Two tertiary care academic hospitals. Patients: Adults hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes or acute decompensated heart failure. Intervention: Pharmacist-assisted medication reconciliation, inpatient pharmacist counseling, low-literacy adherence aids, and individualized telephone follow-up after discharge. Measurements: The primary outcome was the number of clinically important medication errors per patient during the first 30 days after hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included preventable or ameliorable ADEs, as well as potential ADEs. Results: Among 851 participants, 432 (50.8%) had 1 or more clinically important medication errors; 22.9% of such errors were judged to be serious and 1.8% life-threatening. Adverse drug events occurred in 258 patients (30.3%) and potential ADEs in 253 patients (29.7%). The intervention did not significantly alter the per-patient number of clinically important medication errors (unadjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.10]) or ADEs (unadjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.09 [CI, 0.86 to 1.39] ). Patients in the intervention group tended to have fewer potential ADEs (unadjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.80 [CI, 0.61 to 1.04]). Limitation: The characteristics of the study hospitals and participants may limit generalizability. Conclusion: Clinically important medication errors were present among one half of patients after hospital discharge and were not significantly reduced by a health-literacy-sensitive, pharmacistdelivered intervention. Primary Funding Source: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

REDUCE-IT was designed as a randomized, placebo-controlled, cardiovascular outcomes trial of patients treated with statins, who had controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, but persistently elevated triglycerides, along with overt presence of or high risk for cardiovascular disease.1 Participants across 11 countries were randomized to receive icosapent ethyl, a highly purified form of eicosapentaenoic acid, 2 g twice daily or placebo and followed for a median of 4.9 years (maximum 6.2 years). The primary endpoint was time from randomization to first occurrence of a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization. The key secondary endpoint was time from randomization to first occurrence of a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal stroke.

Statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) represent the cornerstone of drug therapy to reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and cardiovascular risk. However, even optimal statin management of LDL cholesterol leaves many patients with residual cardiovascular risk, in part because statins are more effective in reducing LDL cholesterol than apolipoprotein B (Apo B). Apo B may be a better marker of atherogenic risk than LDL cholesterol because Apo B measures the total number of all atherogenic particles (total atherosclerotic burden), including LDL, very low-density lipoprotein, intermediate-density lipoprotein, remnant lipoproteins, and lipoprotein(a). To determine whether Apo B is a better indicator of baseline cardiovascular risk and residual risk after lipid therapy compared with LDL cholesterol, a MEDLINE search of the literature published in English from January 1, 1975, through December 1, 2010, was conducted. On the basis of data from most population studies, elevated Apo B was more strongly associated with incident coronary heart disease than similarly elevated LDL cholesterol. Apo B was also a superior benchmark (vs LDL cholesterol) of statins' cardioprotective efficacy in both primary-prevention and secondary-prevention trials. To minimize cardiovascular risk among persons with hypercholesterolemia or dyslipidemia, the best available evidence suggests that intensive therapy with statins should be initiated to achieve the lowest possible Apo B level (with adequate drug toleration) and then other therapies (eg, niacin, bile acid resins, ezetimibe) added to potentiate these Apo B–lowering effects. In future consensus lipid-lowering treatment guidelines, Apo B should be considered as an index of residual risk, a potential parameter of treatment efficacy, and a treatment target to minimize risk of coronary heart disease.

Importance The Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT) demonstrated the efficacy of icosapent ethyl (IPE) for high-risk patients with hypertriglyceridemia and known cardiovascular disease or diabetes and at least 1 other risk factor who were treated with statins. Objective To estimate the cost-effectiveness of IPE compared with standard care for high-risk patients with hypertriglyceridemia despite statin treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants An in-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using patient-level study data from REDUCE-IT, and a lifetime analysis was performed using a microsimulation model and data from published literature. The study included 8179 patients with hypertriglyceridemia despite stable statin therapy recruited between November 21, 2011, and May 31, 2018. Analyses were performed from a US health care sector perspective. Statistical analysis was performed from March 1, 2018, to October 31, 2021. Interventions Patients were randomly assigned to IPE, 4 g/d, or placebo and were followed up for a median of 4.9 years (IQR, 3.5-5.3 years). The cost of IPE was $4.16 per day after rebates using SSR Health net cost (SSR cost) and $9.28 per day with wholesale acquisition cost (WAC). Main Outcomes and Measures Main outcomes were incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total direct health care costs (2019 US dollars), and cost-effectiveness. Results A total of 4089 patients (2927 men [71.6%]; median age, 64.0 years [IQR, 57.0-69.0 years]) were randomly assigned to receive IPE, and 4090 patients (2895 men [70.8%]; median age, 64.0 years [IQR, 57.0-69.0 years]) were randomly assigned to receive standard care. Treatment with IPE yielded more QALYs than standard care both in trial (3.34 vs 3.27; mean difference, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.01-0.12]) and over a lifetime projection (10.59 vs 10.35; mean difference, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.15-0.33]). In-trial, total health care costs were higher with IPE using either SSR cost ($18 786) or WAC ($24 544) than with standard care ($17 273; mean difference from SSR cost, $1513 [95% CI, $155-$2870]; mean difference from WAC, $7271 [95% CI, $5911-$8630]). Icosapent ethyl cost $22 311 per QALY gained using SSR cost and $107 218 per QALY gained using WAC. Over a lifetime, IPE was projected to be cost saving when using SSR cost ($195 276) compared with standard care ($197 064; mean difference, –$1788 [95% CI, –$9735 to $6159]) but to have higher costs when using WAC ($202 830) compared with standard care (mean difference, $5766 [95% CI, $1094-$10 438]). Compared with standard care, IPE had a 58.4% lifetime probability of costing less and being more effective when using SSR cost and an 89.4% probability of costing less than $50 000 per QALY gained when using SSR cost and a 72.5% probability of costing less than $50 000 per QALY gained when using WAC. Conclusions and Relevance This study suggests that, both in-trial and over the lifetime, IPE offers better cardiovascular outcomes than standard care in REDUCE-IT participants at common willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Objectives: To evaluate the association between low literacy and uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) and their associations with medication adherence. Methods: Cross-sectional study of 423 urban, primary care patients with hypertension and coronary disease. The relationship between low literacy (Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine. ≤. 44) and uncontrolled BP (≥140/90. mmHg, ≥130/80. mmHg for patients with diabetes) was evaluated by crude and adjusted logistic regression. Relationships with self-reported adherence and refill adherence were explored using adjusted linear and logistic regression. Results: Overall, 192 (45%) subjects had low literacy and 227 (52.9%) had uncontrolled BP. Adjusting for age, gender, race, employment, education, mental status, and self-reported adherence, low literacy was associated with uncontrolled BP (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.06-2.87). Lower self-reported adherence was associated with uncontrolled BP; the relationship between refill adherence and uncontrolled BP was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Low literacy is independently associated with uncontrolled BP. Practice implications: Awareness of the relationships among patient literacy, BP control, and medication adherence may guide healthcare providers as they communicate with patients.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease is associated with adverse outcomes among patients with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or diabetes. Commonly used medications to treat CVD are less effective among patients with reduced kidney function. METHODS: REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial) was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that randomly assigned statin-treated patients with elevated triglycerides (135-499 mg/dL) who had CVD or diabetes and 1 additional risk factor to treatment with icosapent ethyl (4 g daily) or placebo. Patients from REDUCE-IT were categorized by prespecified estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) categories to analyze the effect of icosapent ethyl on the primary end point (composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina) and key secondary end point (a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke). RESULTS: Among the 8179 REDUCE-IT patients, median baseline eGFR was 75 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 (range, 17-123 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2). There were no meaningful changes in median eGFR for icosapent ethyl versus placebo across study visits. Treatment with icosapent ethyl led to consistent reduction in both the primary and key secondary composite end points across baseline eGFR categories. Patients with eGFR <60 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 treated with icosapent ethyl had the largest absolute and similar relative risk reduction for the primary composite end point (icosapent ethyl versus placebo, 21.8% versus 28.9%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.59-0.85]; P=0.0002) and key secondary composite end point (16.8% versus 22.5%; HR 0.71 [95% CI, 0.57-0.88]; P=0.001). The numeric reduction in cardiovascular death was greatest in the eGFR <60 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 group (icosapent ethyl: 7.6%; placebo: 10.6%; HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.51-0.95]; P=0.02). Although patients with eGFR <60 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 treated with icosapent ethyl had the highest numeric rates of atrial fibrillation/flutter (icosapent ethyl: 4.2%; placebo 3.0%; HR 1.42 [95% CI, 0.86-2.32]; P=0.17) and serious bleeding (icosapent ethyl: 5.4%; placebo 3.6%; HR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.90-2.18]; P=0.13), HRs for atrial fibrillation/flutter and serious bleeding were similar across eGFR categories (P-interaction for atrial fibrillation/flutter=0.92; P-interaction for serious bleeding=0.76). CONCLUSIONS: In REDUCE-IT, icosapent ethyl reduced fatal and nonfatal ischemic events across the broad range of baseline eGFR categories. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01492361.

BACKGROUND: Overall, poor physician-patient communication is related to post-discharge adverse events and readmission. We analyzed patients' ratings of the quality of physician-patient communication during hospitalization and how this varies by health literacy. METHODS: Medical patients were interviewed during their hospitalization to assess personal characteristics and health literacy. After discharge, patients completed by telephone the 27-item Interpersonal Processes of Care in Diverse Populations Questionnaire (IPC). Using the IPC, patients rated the clarity and quality of physicians' communication during the hospitalization along the following 8 domains: General clarity, Responsiveness to patient concerns, Explanation of patients' problems, Explanation of processes of care, Explanation of self-care after discharge, Empowerment, Decision making, and Consideration of patients' desire and ability to comply with recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 84 patients completed both the in-hospital and telephone interviews. Subjects had a mean age of 55, and 44% had inadequate health literacy. Overall, patients gave the poorest ratings to communication that related to Consideration of patients' desire and ability to comply with recommendations. Patients with inadequate health literacy gave significantly worse ratings on the domains of General clarity, Responsiveness to patient concerns, and Explanation of processes of care (P < 0.05 for each). In multivariable analyses, the relationship with General clarity did not persist. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians received relatively poor ratings on their Consideration of patients' desire and ability to comply with recommendations. Patients with inadequate health literacy experienced lower quality and clarity of hospital communication along multiple domains. More attention to effective health communication is warranted in the hospital setting.