Background Evidence‐based therapies are generally underused for cardiovascular risk reduction; however, less is known about contemporary patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Methods and Results Pharmacy and medical claims data from within Anthem were queried for patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Using an index date of April 18, 2018, we evaluated the proportion of patients with a prescription claim for any of the 3 evidence‐based therapies on, or covering, the index date ±30 days: high‐intensity statin, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, and sodium glucose cotransporter‐2 inhibitor or glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist. The potential benefit of achieving 100% adoption of all 3 evidence‐based therapies was simulated using pooled treatment estimates from clinical trials. Of the 155 958 patients in the sample, 24.7% were using a high‐intensity statin, 53.1% were using an angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, and 9.9% were using either an sodium glucose cotransporter‐2 inhibitor or glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists. Overall, only 2.7% of the population were covered by prescriptions for all 3 evidence‐based therapies, and 37.4% were on none of them. Over a 12‐month period, 70.6% of patients saw a cardiologist, while only 18% saw an endocrinologist. Increasing the use of evidence‐based therapies to 100% over 3 years of treatment could be expected to reduce 4546 major atherosclerotic cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death) in eligible but untreated patients. Conclusions Alarming gaps exist in the contemporary use of evidence‐based therapies in this large population of insured patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These data provide a call to action for patients, providers, industry, regulators, professional societies, and payers to close these gaps in care.

No abstract

ImportanceMany individuals experience ongoing symptoms following the onset of COVID-19, characterized as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 or post–COVID-19 condition (PCC). Less is known about the long-term outcomes for these individuals.ObjectiveTo quantify 1-year outcomes among individuals meeting a PCC definition compared with a control group of individuals without COVID-19.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis case-control study with a propensity score–matched control group included members of commercial health plans and used national insurance claims data enhanced with laboratory results and mortality data from the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File and Datavant Flatiron data. The study sample consisted of adults meeting a claims-based definition for PCC with a 2:1 matched control cohort of individuals with no evidence of COVID-19 during the time period of April 1, 2020, to July 31, 2021.ExposuresIndividuals experiencing postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 using a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–based definition.Main Outcomes and MeasuresAdverse outcomes, including cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes and mortality, for individuals with PCC and controls assessed over a 12-month period.ResultsThe study population included 13 435 individuals with PCC and 26 870 individuals with no evidence of COVID-19 (mean [SD] age, 51 [15.1] years; 58.4% female). During follow-up, the PCC cohort experienced increased health care utilization for a wide range of adverse outcomes: cardiac arrhythmias (relative risk [RR], 2.35; 95% CI, 2.26-2.45), pulmonary embolism (RR, 3.64; 95% CI, 3.23-3.92), ischemic stroke (RR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.98-2.52), coronary artery disease (RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.70-1.88), heart failure (RR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.84-2.10), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (RR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.88-2.00), and asthma (RR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.86-2.03). The PCC cohort also experienced increased mortality, as 2.8% of individuals with PCC vs 1.2% of controls died, implying an excess death rate of 16.4 per 1000 individuals.Conclusions and RelevanceThis case-control study leveraged a large commercial insurance database and found increased rates of adverse outcomes over a 1-year period for a PCC cohort surviving the acute phase of illness. The results indicate a need for continued monitoring for at-risk individuals, particularly in the area of cardiovascular and pulmonary management.

No abstract

Background The supplementation of electronic health records data with administrative claims data may be used to capture outcome events more comprehensively in longitudinal observational studies. This study investigated the utility of administrative claims data to identify outcomes across health systems using a comparative effectiveness study of different types of bariatric surgery as a model. Methods This observational cohort study identified patients who had bariatric surgery between 2007 and 2015 within the HealthCore Anthem Research Network (HCARN) database in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) common data model. Patients whose procedures were performed in a member facility affiliated with PCORnet Clinical Research Networks (CRNs) were selected. The outcomes included a 30-day composite adverse event (including venous thromboembolism, percutaneous/operative intervention, failure to discharge and death), and all-cause hospitalization, abdominal operation or intervention, and in-hospital death up to 5 years after the procedure. Outcomes were classified as occurring within or outside PCORnet CRN health systems using facility identifiers. Results We identified 4899 patients who had bariatric surgery in one of the PCORnet CRN health systems. For 30-day composite adverse event, the inclusion of HCARN multi-site claims data marginally increased the incidence rate based only on HCARN single-site claims data for PCORnet CRNs from 3.9 to 4.2%. During the 5-year follow-up period, 56.8% of all-cause hospitalizations, 31.2% abdominal operations or interventions, and 32.3% of in-hospital deaths occurred outside PCORnet CRNs. Incidence rates (events per 100 patient-years) were significantly lower when based on claims from a single PCORnet CRN only compared to using claims from all health systems in the HCARN: all-cause hospitalization, 11.0 (95% Confidence Internal [CI]: 10.4, 11.6) to 25.3 (95% CI: 24.4, 26.3); abdominal operations or interventions, 4.2 (95% CI: 3.9, 4.6) to 6.1 (95% CI: 5.7, 6.6); in-hospital death, 0.2 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.27) to 0.3 (95% CI: 0.19, 0.38). Conclusions Short-term inclusion of multi-site claims data only marginally increased the incidence rate computed from single-site claims data alone. Longer-term follow up captured a notable number of events outside of PCORnet CRNs. The findings suggest that supplementing claims data improves the outcome ascertainment in longitudinal observational comparative effectiveness studies.