Citations

Abstract Abstract 1508 Background: Tipifarnib is an orally bioavailable farnesyltransferase inhibitor with well-established antileukemic activity in a minority of unselected patients with AML. Seeking to identify patients most likely to have tipifarnib-responsive AML, we applied a PCR-based quantitative 2 gene expression signature ratio (RASGRP1:APTX), which had been tested and validated retrospectively as a predictor of response and survival in previous large studies of tipifarnib, as a molecular screening tool for selection of patients to this pilot trial. Objectives: 1) primary: to determine the complete response (CR +CRi) rate in AML patients prospectively selected for tipifarnib treatment on the basis of a 2-gene signature (RASGRP1:APTX ratio) in bone marrow aspirates. 2) secondary: to assess safety, overall survival, and immunophenotypic expression of RASGRP1 on baseline bone marrow blasts for correlation with PCR-based detection. Methods: This was a multicenter, open-label, phase 2 study. Key eligibility criteria included 1) patients with previously untreated AML, age ≥65 years and deemed unsuitable for or refusing traditional induction chemotherapy, and 2) RASGRP1: APTX ratio of ≥5.0 (measured in bone marrow aspirate) based upon qRT-PCR. Other inclusion criteria included: ECOG PS 0–2, adequate end-organ function, and WBC < 30,000/microliter. Treatment consisted of Tipifarnib 300 mg BID × 21 days, with 7 days off. Dose escalation to 600 mg BID following cycle 1 was permitted for patients who had stable disease (SD) after cycle 1. Patients who achieved CR/CRi or PR after 2 cycles were eligible to continue treatment for up to 6 cycles maximum. Results: A total of 62 patients were consented to the trial. Of these, 21 (34%) were eligible based upon the required 2-gene ratio. Assay results were reported within 72 hours for all patients. Median age was 75 years. Fourteen (67%) patients had adverse karyotype and 14 (67%) had secondary AML (including 7 patients who received prior therapy for MDS). Three patients were replaced during cycle 1, due to withdrawal of consent or early unrelated death, such that 18 patients were considered evaluable for response. Median RASGRP1:APTX was 14.8. Two patients (11%) achieved CR and 6 (33%) additional patients had both SD and achievement of ≥50% reduction in bone marrow blasts by completion of cycle 2. Two of these 6 patients also had ≥50% increase in peripheral blood neutrophils or platelets. All 8 patients with CR or SD received at least 2 cycles of therapy. There was no correlation between baseline RASGRP1:APTX ratio and response. Overall, tipifarnib was well tolerated. Early death (≤ 30 days) was observed in only 1 patient (5%). The most common therapy-related non-hematologic toxicities (mainly grade 1–2) included: anorexia (33%), nausea (33%), fatigue (28%), febrile neutropenia (23%) and diarrhea (23%). Due to the trial not meeting its primary endpoint of at least 3 CR/CRi after 2 cycles, accrual to the trial was suspended. Conclusion: Monotherapy with tipifarnib in preselected elderly patients with AML and a RASGRP1:APTX ratio of ≥5 was associated with significant antileukemic activity and good tolerance. Although the primary endpoints during the first stage of the trial were not met, this study demonstrated the ability to rapidly and efficiently execute a biomarker-driven trial in an aggressive malignancy. Given the observed antileukemic activity in this selected population, along with a favorable toxicity and bioavailability profile for chronic dosing, further study of tipifarnib with less rigid endpoints than CR/CRi is warranted. Updated survival and RASGRP1 protein expression data will also be presented. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Tipifarnib in AML. Knoblauch:Johnson & Johnson: Employment. Karkera:Johnson & Johnson: Employment.

Abstract Background: Polycythemia vera (PV) is characterized by erythrocytosis, thrombocytosis, and/or leukocytosis and a broad range of disease-related symptoms. In high-risk patients, the most common first-line treatment is hydroxyurea (HU). The open-label RESPONSE trial demonstrated that ruxolitinib (RUX), a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, provided superior efficacy compared with best available therapy in patients with PV who were resistant to or intolerant of HU according to modified European LeukemiaNet (ELN) criteria. This study (RELIEF) was conducted in patients receiving a stable dose of HU and who were generally well controlled but reporting disease-associated symptoms, comparing the change in PV-related symptom burden in patients continuing their HU therapy with those switching to RUX treatment. Methods: RELIEF was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3b study of patients with PV aged ≥18 years on a stable dose of HU monotherapy and reporting PV-related symptoms. Patients were required to be receiving HU for ≥12 weeks prior to enrollment and on the same dose level for the last 4 weeks, and have a score ≥8 on the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF) cytokine total symptom score (TSS-C). The TSS-C comprised symptoms of itching, tiredness, muscle ache, night sweats, and sweats while awake; each symptom was rated on a scale of 0=absent to 10=worst imaginable, with a maximum TSS-C score of 50. Patients also had to meet one of the following: ≤1 phlebotomy in the previous 6 months or no palpable splenomegaly. Those eligible were randomized 1:1 to receive RUX 10 mg BID and HU-placebo, or HU at the same dose/schedule and RUX-placebo. Dose adjustments were permitted for safety and efficacy. After Week 16, patients could receive open-label RUX until Week 48. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in TSS-C at Week 16; secondary endpoints included proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in individual TSS-C symptoms and safety. Results: Overall, 54 and 56 patients were randomized to RUX and HU, respectively; 87.0% and 89.3% remained on treatment through Week 16. At baseline, the median age (range) was 64 (36-87) in the RUX group and 66 (19-85) in the HU group; 44% and 61% were men. The majority of patients in the RUX and HU groups did not have baseline platelet counts or WBC above ELN thresholds: platelets >400 and ≤600 x 109/L (RUX 31.5%, HU 28.6%), >600 x 109/L (3.7%, 8.9%); WBC >10 and ≤15 x 109/L (16.7%, 16.1%), >15 x 109/L (11.1%, 14.3%). In the RUX and HU groups, the mean TSS-C at screening (22.4, 23.1) was higher than that at baseline (16.7, 18.0); the ratio of screening to baseline TSS-C was 1.7 and 1.6. The proportion of patients achieving a ≥50% reduction from baseline in TSS-C at Week 16 (primary endpoint) was 43.4% in the RUX group and 29.6% in the HU group (P=0.139; OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 0.82-4.04). The proportions of patients in the RUX vs HU groups achieving a ≥50% reduction in scores for itching and tiredness at Week 16 were 40.0% vs 26.4% and 54.2% vs 32.0%, respectively. Median percentage changes in individual TSS-C symptoms are shown in Table 1. Additional analyses found no correlation between individual changes in HU dose from baseline to Weeks 13-16 and percentage change in TSS-C in the HU arm (r2=0.030). Even patients maintaining the same HU dose from prior to study entry through Week 16 reported symptom improvement: 12/35 (34.3%) with no dose change, 4/12 (33.3%) with a dose increase, and 0/9 (0%) with a dose decrease had a ≥50% reduction in TSS-C. The most common nonhematologic adverse events in the RUX arm on randomized treatment were fatigue (20.4% RUX vs 10.7% HU), headache (16.7% vs 5.4%), and dizziness (13.0% vs 8.9%). The most common adverse events on HU were diarrhea (9.3% RUX vs 19.6% HU) and constipation (7.4% vs 12.5%); most events were grade 1 or 2. Grade 3 or 4 anemia or thrombocytopenia (lab values) were not reported in the RUX group; two patients in the RUX group had grade 3 or 4 neutropenia. Conclusion: In generally well controlled PV patients receiving a stable dose of HU, there was a positive trend in symptom improvement for patients switched to RUX therapy versus those continuing on HU therapy, although this was not statistically significant. The 34% response rate among patients who continued to receive a stable HU dose suggests a placebo effect that led to an underpowered study. Further analyses are required to better interpret these findings. Disclosures Off Label Use: Ruxolitinib is a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with intermediate or high-risk myelofibrosis, including primary myelofibrosis, post polycythemia vera myelofibrosis, and post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis. Vannucchi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Yacoub:Alexion Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Koschmieder:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Byrne:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Verstovsek:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Hunter:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jones:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. He:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Morozov:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Abstract 800 Background: Ruxolitinib (RUX), an oral JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, reduced spleen volume (SV), improved myelofibrosis (MF)-associated symptoms and quality of life (QoL), and appeared to exhibit a survival advantage over placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with MF regardless of JAK2V617F mutation status in the phase III COMFORT-I study. We describe long-term efficacy and safety of RUX from COMFORT-I, with 1 year of additional follow up beyond previously published data. Methods: Eligible pts (N=309) were randomized (1:1) to RUX or PBO. The primary analysis occurred when all pts completed 24 weeks (wks) and when half the pts completed 36 wks of treatment. All pts receiving PBO were eligible for crossover to RUX after the primary analysis; crossover before wk 24 was permitted if pts met protocol-defined criteria for worsening splenomegaly. The proportion of pts with ≥35% SV reduction at 24 wks (primary endpoint) and durability of SV response were assessed. Although symptom burden (measured daily using the modified MF Symptom Assessment Form v2.0) was only measured up to wk 24, QoL continued to be evaluated beyond wk 24 (every 24 wks) using the EORTC QoL Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30). Overall survival (OS) was assessed according to original randomized treatment. Results: In this updated analysis, median follow-up of pts randomized to RUX was 102 wks. All pts receiving PBO completed crossover or discontinued within 3 months of the primary analysis. Of 134 pts randomized to RUX who remained on treatment after the primary data analysis, 100 continue on study. Mean SV reduction in pts randomized to RUX was 31.6% at wk 24 and has remained stable with additional follow up through wk 96 (Table). In pts who achieved a ≥35% SV reduction, response was durable, with a median response duration of 108 wks. RUX treatment was also associated with durable improvements in the Global Health Status/QoL (Table) and the 5 functional domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Twenty-seven (27) pts randomized to RUX and 41 pts randomized to PBO died, representing a continued OS benefit in favor of RUX (HR=0.58; 95% CI: 0.36, 0.95; P = 0.028; Fig 1) similar in magnitude to that previously reported. OS favored RUX across subgroups including starting dose as well as baseline risk status and hemoglobin (Hgb). Of 34 pts randomized to RUX who discontinued after the primary analysis, 4 discontinued for an adverse event (AE). In pts who continued on RUX, anemia and thrombocytopenia remained the most frequently reported AEs. New onset of grade 3 or 4 anemia and thrombocytopenia was reported in only 12 and 5 pts, respectively. One pt discontinued for anemia. Overall, among all pts randomized to RUX, Grade 3 and 4 anemia regardless of baseline Hgb was reported in 37.4% and 14.8% of pts, respectively. Similarly, Grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia was reported in 11.0% and 5.2% of pts, respectively. These rates were similar to those reported in the primary analysis. By wk 36, the proportion of pts receiving red blood cell transfusions decreased to the level seen with PBO and remained stable thereafter (Fig 2). Rates of nonhematologic AEs adjusted for increased follow-up duration remain similar to those seen at the time of the primary data analysis. No additional cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in pts randomized to RUX were reported. Two pts originally randomized to PBO developed AML, 21 and 178 days after crossover to RUX. There continued to be no reports of a withdrawal syndrome after RUX discontinuation. Conclusions: RUX provides durable reductions in SV and improvements in QoL. Although all pts randomized to PBO crossed over to RUX shortly after the primary analysis, with 1 year of additional follow up, RUX continues to be associated with a survival advantage over PBO. RUX continues to be well tolerated; the AE profile with long-term treatment is consistent with that previously reported. The proportion of pts receiving transfusions decreased over time to rates similar to PBO, and there were no reports of a specific withdrawal syndrome or cytokine rebound phenomenon after RUX discontinuation. Disclosures: Verstovsek: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; YM Bioscience: Research Funding. Gotlib:Incyte: Consultancy, travel to congress Other. Levy:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gupta:Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; YM Biosciences: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofiå]Aventis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Catalano:Incyte: Consultancy. Deininger:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy. Miller:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau, development of educational presentations Other; Incyte: development of educational presentations, development of educational presentations Other. Talpaz:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; B.M.S.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Winton:Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Arcasoy:Incyte: Research Funding. Lyons:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Telik: Research Funding. Paquette:Incyte: Consultancy. Vaddi:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Erickson-Viitanen:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sun:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sandor:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kantarjian:Incyte: grant support Other.

AbstractIntroductionMyocardial infarction (MI) is associated with an increase in subsequent heart failure (HF), recurrent ischemic events, sudden cardiac arrest, and ventricular arrhythmias (SCA‐VA). The primary objective of the study to determine the role of intercurrent HF and ischemic events on the development of SCA‐VA following first type I MI.Methods and resultsA retrospective cohort study of patients experiencing first type 1 MI in Olmsted County, Minnesota (2002‐2012) was conducted by identifying patients using the medical records linkage system (Rochester epidemiology project). Patients aged ≥18 years were followed from the time of MI till death or 31 July, 2017. Intercurrent HF and ischemic events were the primary exposures following MI and their association with outcome SCA‐VA was assessed. Eight hundred and sixty‐seven patients (mean age was 63 ± 14.5 years; 69% male; 49.8% ST‐elevation myocardial infarction) who had their first type I MI during the study period were included. Majority of acute MI patients were revascularized using percutaneous coronary intervention and bypass surgery (628 [72.43%] and 87 [10.03%] respectively). During a mean follow‐up of 7.69 ± 4.17 years, HF, recurrent ischemic events and SCA‐VA occurred in 155 (17.9%), 245 (28.3%), and 40 (4.61%) patients respectively. Low ejection fraction (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93‐0.98; P < .001), intercurrent HF (adjusted HR 3.11; 95% CI, 1.39‐6.95; P = .006) and recurrent ischemic events (adjusted HR 3.47; 95% CI, 1.68‐7.18; P < .001) were associated with subsequent SCA‐VA.ConclusionSCA‐VA occurred in a small proportion of patients after MI and is associated with intercurrent HF and recurrent ischemic events.

Background Current treatment guidelines strongly recommend statin therapy for secondary prevention. However, it remains unclear whether patients’ perceptions of cardiovascular risk, beliefs on cholesterol, or the intensity of prescribed statin therapy differs for patients with coronary artery disease ( CAD ) versus cerebrovascular disease (Ce VD ) versus both CAD and Ce VD ( CAD &Ce VD ). Methods and Results The PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry collected data on statin use, intensity, and core laboratory low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol levels for 3232 secondary prevention patients treated at 133 US clinics. Among individuals with Ce VD only (n=403), CAD only (n=2202), and Ce VD & CAD (n=627), no significant differences were observed in patient‐perceived cardiovascular disease risk, beliefs on cholesterol lowering, or perceived effectiveness and safety of statin therapy. However, patients with Ce VD only were less likely to receive any statin therapy (76.2% versus 86.2%; adjusted odds ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.45–0.91), or guideline‐recommended statin intensity (34.6% versus 50.4%; adjusted odds ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.45–0.81) than those with CAD only. Individuals with Ce VD only were also less likely to achieve low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/ dL (59.2% versus 69.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.64–0.99) than individuals with CAD alone. There were no significant differences in the use of any statin therapy or guideline‐recommended statin intensity between individuals with CAD &Ce VD and those with CAD only. Conclusions Despite lack of significant differences in patient‐perceived cardiovascular risk or statin beliefs, patients with Ce VD were significantly less likely to receive higher intensity statin or achieve low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/ dL than those with CAD only.

A 56-year-old truck driver with a history of tobacco use presented with acute onset digital ischaemia in the ulnar distribution of his dominant hand, associated with severe pain. Occupational exposures included extensive manual labour and prolonged vibratory stimuli. Workup with Doppler and angiography confirmed the diagnosis of hypothenar hammer syndrome (HHS). After the failure of medical management, he underwent ulnar artery thrombectomy with reconstruction and arterial bypass grafting. His pain improved significantly postsurgically, and he was able to return to a normal routine. This case illustrates the classic presentation, examination, imaging findings and management options of HHS. HHS should be considered in patients with digital ischaemia and associated occupational exposures. Diagnosing the condition appropriately allows for optimal management, aiming at minimising symptoms and maximising quality of life.

Objective: To understand the interaction of multimorbidity and functional limitations in determining health-care utilization and survival in older adults. Methods: Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents aged 60–89 years in 2005 were categorized into four cohorts based on the presence or absence of multimorbidity (≥3 chronic conditions from a list of 18) and functional limitations (≥1 limitation in an activity of daily living from a list of 9), and were followed through December 31, 2016. Andersen–Gill and Cox regression estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and death using persons with neither multimorbidity nor functional limitations as the reference (interaction analyses). Results: Among 13,145 persons, 34% had neither multimorbidity nor functional limitations, 44% had multimorbidity only, 4% had functional limitations only, and 18% had both. Over a median follow-up of 11 years, 5906 ED visits, 2654 hospitalizations, and 4559 deaths occurred. Synergistic interactions on an additive scale of multimorbidity and functional limitations were observed for all outcomes; however, the magnitude of the interactions decreased with advancing age. The HR (95% confidence interval) for death among persons with both multimorbidity and functional limitations was 5.34 (4.40–6.47) at age 60–69, 4.16 (3.59–4.83) at age 70–79, and 2.86 (2.45–3.35) at age 80–89 years. Conclusion: The risk of ED visits, hospitalizations, and death among persons with both multimorbidity and functional limitations is greater than additive. The magnitude of the interaction was strongest for the youngest age group, highlighting the importance of interventions to prevent and effectively manage multimorbidity and functional limitations early in life.

Abstract BACKGROUND The impact of treatment on both the quality and the quantity of life, i.e. the ‘net clinical benefit’, should be considered to inform glioma patients and facilitate shared decision making. We applied two methods (i.e. Quality Adjusted Effect Sizes (QASES) and Joint Modelling (JM)) that combine survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data into one outcome, to gain insight in the net clinical benefit of a treatment strategy. In addition, we assessed if both methods result in similar interpretations. MATERIAL AND METHODS We calculated the net clinical benefit in one randomized controlled trial, EORTC 26951 comparing radiotherapy (RT) + PCV chemotherapy versus RT alone, as a proof of concept for other trials. With the QASES method, effect sizes for differences in survival and HRQoL between treatment arms were calculated. Next, the combined effect size can be determined by weighing the emphasis put on survival or HRQoL (e.g. survival more important). JM allows simultaneous modeling of a longitudinal outcome (HRQoL), and a time-to event outcome (survival). HRQoL scales/items that were selected for primary analysis in the main study were also selected for this analysis: fatigue, global health, social functioning, communication deficit, seizures, physical functioning, and nausea/vomiting. RESULTS 288/386 patients completed baseline HRQoL forms and were included in the analysis. Overall survival (OS) was significantly longer with combined treatment (difference of 10.8 months). In contrast, the percentage of patients who experienced a clinically relevant deterioration (≥10 points) in nausea/vomiting, fatigue, social functioning and global health up to one year after treatment compared to baseline was larger in the RT+PCV arm. The QASES corresponded to a reduction in the median OS difference from 10.8 months to 6.8 months when adjusted for the HRQoL scales/items, when given equal weights to OS and HRQoL. JM analyses resulted in a theoretical loss of treatment effect in OS of 2–6% when adjusting for HRQoL. CONCLUSION Both methods showed that adjusting for the impact of treatment on a relevant HRQoL parameter reduced the survival benefit in the experimental treatment arm compared to standard treatment arm. Applying these methods may facilitate communicating the impact of treatment to patients in clinical practice.

AbstractBackgroundEnterococcal cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are not well characterized.MethodsData from the Multicenter Electrophysiologic Device Infection Cohort, a prospective study of CIED infections, were used for descriptive analysis of adults with enterococcal CIED infections.ResultsOf 433 patients, 21 (4.8%) had enterococcal CIED infection. Median age was 71 years. Twelve patients (57%) had permanent pacemakers, five (24%) implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and four (19%) biventricular devices. Median time from last procedure to infection was 570 days. CIED‐related bloodstream infections occurred in three patients (14%) and 18 (86%) had infective endocarditis (IE), 14 (78%) of which were definite by the modified Duke criteria. IE cases were classified as follows: valvular IE, four; lead IE, eight; both valve and lead IE, six. Vegetations were demonstrated by transesophageal echocardiography in 17 patients (81%). Blood cultures were positive in 19/19 patients with confirmed results. The most common antimicrobial regimen was penicillin plus an aminoglycoside (33%). Antibiotics were given for a median of 43 days. Only 14 patients (67%) underwent device removal. There was one death during the index hospitalization with four additional deaths within 6 months (overall mortality 24%). There were no relapses.ConclusionsEnterococci caused 4.8% of CIED infections in our cohort. Based on the late onset after device placement or manipulation, most infections were likely hematogenous in origin. IE was the most common infection syndrome. Only 67% of patients underwent device removal. At 6 months follow‐up, no CIED infection relapses had occurred, but overall mortality was 24%.

Background: Female patients have historically received less aggressive lipid management than male patients. Contemporary care patterns and the potential causes for these differences are unknown. Methods and Results: Examining the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management Registry—a nationwide registry of outpatients with or at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease—we compared the use of statin therapy, guideline-recommended statin dosing, and reasons for undertreatment. We specifically analyzed sex differences in statin treatment and guideline-recommended statin dosing using multivariable logistic regression. Among 5693 participants (43% women) eligible for 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Guideline–recommended statin treatment, women were less likely than men to be prescribed any statin therapy (67.0% versus 78.4%; P <0.001) or to receive a statin at the guideline-recommended intensity (36.7% versus 45.2%; P <0.001). Women were more likely to report having previously never been offered statin therapy (18.6% versus 13.5%; P <0.001), declined statin therapy (3.6% versus 2.0%; P <0.001), or discontinued their statin (10.9% versus 6.1%; P <0.001). Women were also less likely than men to believe statins were safe (47.9% versus 55.2%; P <0.001) or effective (68.0% versus 73.2%; P <0.001) and more likely to report discontinuing their statin because of a side effect (7.9% versus 3.6%; P <0.001). Sex differences in both overall and guideline-recommended intensity statin use persisted after adjustment for demographics, socioeconomic factors, clinical characteristics, patient beliefs, and provider characteristics (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61–0.81; P <0.001; and odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73–0.92; P <0.01, respectively). Sex differences were consistent across primary and secondary prevention indications for statin treatment. Conclusions: Women eligible for statin therapy were less likely than men to be treated with any statin or guideline-recommended statin intensity. A combination of women being offered statin therapy less frequently, while declining and discontinuing treatment more frequently, accounted for these sex differences in statin use.