Ross, Joseph S

Background The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association periodically revise clinical practice guidelines. We evaluated changes in the evidence underlying guidelines published over a 10‐year period. Methods and Results Thirty‐five American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines were divided into 2 time periods: 2008 to 2012 and 2013 to 2017. Guidelines were categorized into the following topic areas: arrhythmias, prevention, acute and stable ischemia, heart failure, valvular heart disease, and vascular medicine. Changes in recommendations were assessed for each topic area. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association designated class of recommendation as level I, II , or III (I represented “strongly recommended”) and levels of evidence ( LOE ) as A, C, or C (A represented “highest quality”). The median number of recommendations per each topic area was 281 (198–536, interquartile range) in 2008 to 2012 versus 247 (190–451.3, interquartile range) in 2013 to 2017. The median proportion of class of recommendation I was 49.3% and 44.4% in the 2 time periods, 38.0% and 44.5% for class of recommendation II , and 12.5% and 11.2% for class of recommendation III . Median proportions for LOE A were 15.7% and 14.1%, 41.0% and 52.8% for LOE B, and 46.9% and 32.5% for LOE C. The decrease in the proportion of LOE C was highest in heart failure (24.8%), valvular heart disease (22.3%), and arrhythmia (19.2%). An increase in the proportion of LOE B was observed for these same areas: 31.8%, 23.8%, and 19.2%, respectively. Conclusions There has been a decrease in American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommendations, driven by removal of recommendations based on lower quality of evidence, although there was no corresponding increase in the highest quality of evidence.

Background: High-quality diabetes care is evidence-based, timely, and equitable. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are the most recently approved class of glucose-lowering medications with additional cardio- and renal-protective benefits and low risk of hypoglycemia. Cardiovascular and kidney disease are among the most common chronic diabetes complications, whereas hypoglycemia is the most prevalent adverse effect of glucose-lowering therapy. We examine the sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with early SGLT2i initiation and appropriateness of use based on contemporaneous scientific evidence. Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis of medical and pharmacy claims data from OptumLabs ® Data Warehouse for commercially insured and Medicare Advantage adult beneficiaries with diabetes types 1 and 2, who filled any glucose-lowering medication between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2016. Demographic (age, sex, race, income), clinical (comorbidities), and insurance-related factors affecting first prescription for a SGLT2i were examined using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Among 1,054,727 adults with pharmacologically treated diabetes, 7.2% ( n = 75,500) initiated a SGLT2i. Patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) (odds ratio [OR]: 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91–0.96), heart failure (HF) (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.91–0.94), kidney disease (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.78–0.81), and severe hypoglycemia (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.94–0.98) were all less likely to start a SGLT2i; P < 0.001 for all. SGLT2i were also less likely to be started by patients ≥75 years (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.55–0.59, vs. 18–44 years), Black patients (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.91–0.95, vs. White), and those with Medicare Advantage insurance (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.62–0.64, vs. commercial). Conclusions: Younger, healthier, non-Black patients with commercial health insurance were most likely to start taking SGLT2i. Patients with MI, HF, kidney disease, and prior hypoglycemia were less likely to use SGLT2i, despite evidence supporting their preferential use in these patients. Efforts to address this treatment-risk paradox may help improve health outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes.

The cost of prescription drugs in the United States continues to be a source of concern for patients, caregivers, and policymakers. Drug prices typically decline rapidly once generic drugs receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and enter the market, but the past decade has witnessed rising costs and shortages of generic drugs. We describe the strategies used by brand‐name manufacturers to undermine generic competition and the reasons underlying the price increases of off‐patent drugs, some of which continue to lack any competition from generic versions, and others that have increased in price despite having generic versions. We discuss the FDA's role in addressing drug prices and promoting competition, including recent agency policies to modify its process of reviewing generic drug applications and to prioritize applications for off‐patent drugs with few competitors. We also examine proposed policy solutions and research areas that could help address the price increases of off‐patent drugs.