Emmady, Prabhu D.

Baseline Differences in Risk Factor Control and Medication Use Between 2 Trials Employing Intensive Medical Management (SAMMPRIS & CREST2) Background: The CREST2 trial Intensive Medical Management (IMM) protocol was adapted from the SAMMPRIS trial. However, since the 2011 publication of initial results of SAMMPRIS, there has been a greater appreciation for the importance of risk factor control in patients at risk of stroke associated with atherosclerosis. Therefore, we sought to determine differences in baseline risk factor control and medication use between SAMMPRIS and CREST2. Methods: Baseline risk factor and medication use data from 451 patients enrolled in SAMMPRIS (2008-2011) with severe symptomatic intracranial atherosclerosis and 1473 patients enrolled in CREST2 (2014-2019) with severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis were compared using the Chi-square test and t-test. Results: The Table shows baseline risk factor values and medications. SAMMPRIS patients were younger but had significantly worse risk factor control than CREST2 patients for all measures. There was no significant difference in statin use at baseline, but the mean SAMMPRIS subjects’ LDL was 16.1 mg/dL higher than in CREST2. CREST2 patients had higher rates of use of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), calcium channel blockers (CCB), and thiazides, but lower rates of use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Conclusions: Despite being older, CREST2 patients have significantly better baseline risk factor profiles than SAMMPRIS patients. This could be due to greater appreciation of the importance of risk factor control and healthy lifestyle habits for stroke prevention or more aggressive treatment targets in guideline recommendations. Although risk factor control appears to be improving since SAMMPRIS, many CREST2 patients are still not meeting recommended risk factor goals at baseline and may benefit from IMM protocols.

Background: In CREST2, intensive medical management of subjects’ vascular risk factors is overseen by the site Principal Investigator (PI) and implemented by a designated Medical Management Physician (MMP) and coordinator. These physicians have different specialties and experience with risk factor management. We sought to determine the relationship between risk factor control and PI and MMP specialty. Methods: Data on 613 patients with at least 1 follow-up visit from 105 CREST2 sites were used for these analyses. CREST2 sites were categorized based on both PI specialty and MMP specialty. Specialty of the site-designated primary MMP was used for sites with more than one MMP. We compared the percentage of patients in target at last follow-up visit for the primary risk factors, LDL < 70 mg/dL and SBP <140 mm Hg, among PI specialties and MMP specialties, using the chi-square test. Results: The table shows the number of patients by PI and MMP specialty, as well as their control of SBP and LDL. There were no significant differences in control of SBP or LDL by PI specialty. There was a trend toward an association between LDL control and MMP specialty, with higher rates of LDL control at sites with Internal Medicine MMP specialists and lower rates of control with Vascular Surgery MMPs. SBP control rates were not significantly different across MMP specialties. Conclusions: In this early analysis of risk factor control in the CREST2 study, site PI and MMP specialty did not have a significant effect on LDL and SBP during follow-up. This suggests that protocol care pathways are generalizable to diverse physicians.