Trial reportJAMA cardiology2021

Effect of the Million Hearts Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction Model on Initiating and Intensifying Medications: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

G Greg Peterson, Jia Pu, David J Magid, Linda Barterian, Keith Kranker, Michael Barna, Leslie Conwell, Adam Rose, Laura Blue, Amanda Markovitz and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA cardiology, 2021. The graph read 3 numbers from its abstract, feeding 2 cells of the map: it supports the treatment in 2. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

3numbers the graph read from it
2cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
-2.906.700 · no effect
Lipidsfavours the treatment · against placebo · hypertension, ascvdfeeds one cell of the map
Δ -1.80-2.90 to -0.60P = .002
Among high-risk enrollees with clinical data approximately 1 year after enrollment, LDL cholesterol level was slightly lower in the intervention vs control groups (mean [SD], 89 [31.8] vs 91 [32.1] mg/dL; adjusted difference in percentage points, -1.8; 95% CI, -2.9 to -0.6; P = .002), as was systolic blood pressure (mean [SD], 133 [15.7] vs 135 [16.4] mm Hg; adjusted difference in percentage points, -1.7; 95% CI, -2.8 to -0.6; P = .003).
Blood pressurefavours the treatment · against placebo · hypertension, ascvdfeeds one cell of the map
Δ -1.70-2.80 to -0.60P = .003
Among high-risk enrollees with clinical data approximately 1 year after enrollment, LDL cholesterol level was slightly lower in the intervention vs control groups (mean [SD], 89 [31.8] vs 91 [32.1] mg/dL; adjusted difference in percentage points, -1.8; 95% CI, -2.9 to -0.6; P = .002), as was systolic blood pressure (mean [SD], 133 [15.7] vs 135 [16.4] mm Hg; adjusted difference in percentage points, -1.7; 95% CI, -2.8 to -0.6; P = .003).
Blood pressurefavours the comparator · head-to-head · hypertension, ascvdfeeds one cell of the map
Δ 4.802.90 to 6.70P < .001
Patients in the intervention group with these risk factors were more likely than control patients (8127 [37.3%] vs 4753 [32.4%]; adjusted difference in percentage points, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.9-6.7; P < .001) to initiate or intensify statins or antihypertensive medication.

clause the extractor read what became the number

2 · Its place on the map

Where it lands on the map

Rows are treatments, columns are outcomes. The coloured squares are the cells this paper feeds, coloured by the vote it casts there. Click one to jump to what this paper adds to it.

supports the treatmentfavours the comparatorno clear differenceread, but no usable result
3 · What it changes

What it adds to each cell

For every cell the paper feeds: the belief in the claim with and without this paper, and this paper's estimate drawn against every other readable study in the cell. The ringed dot is this paper.

Antihypertensives×blood pressure

SupportsOpen on the map →What to test next →

3 readable studies in this cell: 1 favour the treatment, 2 find no difference, 0 favour the comparator.

Belief with this paper
0.96replicated · 2 families support, 0 contradict · against placebo
Without it
0.50This paper moves it by +0.46. It would be one trial.
← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
0 · no effect
This paper · 2021
Δ -1.70-2.80 to -0.60
NCT00976495154 enrolled · 2009
Δ 3.26-1.55 to 8.08

Antihypertensives×lipids

SupportsOpen on the map →What to test next →

2 readable studies in this cell: 2 favour the treatment, 0 find no difference, 0 favour the comparator.

Belief with this paper
0.96replicated · 2 families support, 0 contradict · against placebo
Without it
0.50This paper moves it by +0.46. It would be one trial.
← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
0 · no effect
This paper · 2021
Δ -1.80-2.90 to -0.60
4 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

5 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
6 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

7 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

G Greg PetersonMathematica, Washington, DC.
Jia PuMathematica, San Francisco, California.
David J MagidUniversity of Colorado Denver, Denver.
Linda BarterianMathematica, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Keith KrankerMathematica, Silverton, Colorado.
Michael BarnaMathematica, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Leslie ConwellMathematica, Washington, DC.
Adam RoseHebrew University School of Public Health, Jerusalem, Israel.
Laura BlueMathematica, Washington, DC.
Amanda MarkovitzMathematica, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Nancy McCallMathematica, Washington, DC.
Patricia MarkovichUS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Woodlawn, Maryland.
Mathematica Policy Research · USCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services · USHebrew University of Jerusalem · ILUniversity of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

8 · The paper itself

Abstract

The marked sentences are the ones the graph read a number from.

Importance: The Million Hearts Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Risk Reduction Model pays provider organizations for measuring and reducing Medicare patients' cardiovascular risk. Objective: To assess whether the model increases the initiation or intensification of antihypertensive medications or statins among patients with blood pressure or low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels above guideline thresholds for treatment intensification. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial included primary care and cardiology practices, health care centers, and hospital-based outpatient departments across the US. Participants included Medicare patients who were enrolled into the model in 2017 by participating organizations and who were at high risk and at medium risk of a myocardial infarction or stroke in 10 years. Patient outcomes were analyzed for 1 year postenrollment (through December 2018) using an intent-to-treat design. Analysis began November 2019. Interventions: US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services paid organizations for risk stratifying Medicare patients and reducing CVD risk among high-risk patients through discussing risk scores, developing individualized risk reduction plans, and following up with patients twice yearly. Main Outcomes and Measures: Initiating or intensifying statin or antihypertensive therapy within 1 year of enrollment, measured in Medicare Part D claims, and LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure levels approximately 1 year after enrollment, measured in usual care and reported to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services via a data registry (data complete for 51% of high-risk enrollees). The study's primary outcome (incidence of first-time myocardial infarction and stroke) is not reported because the trial is ongoing. Results: A total of 330 primary care and cardiology practices, health care centers, and hospital-based outpatient departments and 125 436 Medicare patients were included in this analysis. High-risk patients in the intervention group had a mean (SD) age of 74 (4.1), 15 213 (63%) were male, 21 657 (90%) were receiving antihypertensive medication at baseline, and 16 558 (69%) were receiving statins. Almost all (21 791 [91%]) high-risk intervention group patients had above-threshold systolic blood pressure level (>130 mm Hg), LDL cholesterol level (>70 mg/dL), or both. Patients in the intervention group with these risk factors were more likely than control patients (8127 [37.3%] vs 4753 [32.4%]; adjusted difference in percentage points, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.9-6.7; P < .001) to initiate or intensify statins or antihypertensive medication. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services did not pay for CVD risk reduction for medium-risk enrollees, but initiation or intensification rates for these enrollees were also higher in the intervention vs control groups (12 668 [27.9%] vs 7544 [24.8%]; adjusted difference in percentage points, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.9-4.3; P < .001). Among high-risk enrollees with clinical data approximately 1 year after enrollment, LDL cholesterol level was slightly lower in the intervention vs control groups (mean [SD], 89 [31.8] vs 91 [32.1] mg/dL; adjusted difference in percentage points, -1.8; 95% CI, -2.9 to -0.6; P = .002), as was systolic blood pressure (mean [SD], 133 [15.7] vs 135 [16.4] mm Hg; adjusted difference in percentage points, -1.7; 95% CI, -2.8 to -0.6; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a pay-for-performance model led to modest increases in the use of CVD medications in a range of organizations, despite high medication use at baseline.

Indexed as

ForecastingRisk Reduction BehaviorAgedAntihypertensive AgentsBiomarkersCardiovascular DiseasesCholesterol, LDLFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsMaleRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsAntihypertensive AgentsBiomarkersCholesterol, LDLHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID34076665
PMCPMC8173467
OpenAlexW3164858938

What Socratic holds

Texttitle and abstract
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.