Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 28, Supplement 2, pp 529–535 | Cite as

Accounting for Clinical Action Reduces Estimates of Gender Disparities in Lipid Management for Diabetic Veterans

  • Varsha G. Vimalananda
  • Donald R. Miller
  • Timothy P. Hofer
  • Robert G. Holleman
  • Mandi L. Klamerus
  • Eve A. Kerr
Open Access
Original Research



Women with diabetes have higher low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels than men, resulting in apparent disparities between genders on quality indicators tied to LDL thresholds.


To investigate whether gender disparities persist when accounting for clinical action with statins or cardiovascular risk.


Retrospective cohort study.


Veterans Health Administration patients (21,780 women and 646,429 men) aged 50–75 with diabetes.


Threshold measure: LDL < 100 mg/dL; clinical action measure: LDL < 100 mg/dL; or LDL ≥ 100 mg/dL and the patient was prescribed a moderate or high-dose statin at the time of the test; or LDL ≥ 100 mg/dL and the patient received other appropriate clinical action within 90 days; adherence: continuous multiple interval measure of gaps in dispensed medication (CMG).


Women were much less likely to have LDL < 100 mg/dL than were men (55 % vs. 68 %). This disparity narrowed from 13 % to 6 % for passing the clinical action measure (79 % vs. 85 %). These gender differences persisted among those with ischemic heart disease (IHD). Women had a lower odds of passing the clinical action measure (odds ratio 0.68, 95 % confidence interval 0.66–0.71). Among those with IHD, the gender gap increased with age. Differences in pass rates were explained by women’s higher LDL levels, but not by their slightly worse adherence (3 % higher CMG).


Women and men veterans receive more similar quality of care for lipids in diabetes than previously indicated. Less reassuringly, the remaining gender differences appear to be as common in women at high cardiovascular risk as in those at low risk. Rather than focus on simply improving LDL levels in all women with diabetes, future efforts should ensure that patients with high cardiovascular risk are appropriately treated with statins when clinically indicated, feasible, and concordant with patient preferences.


women disparities statins quality of care diabetes 


Large gender differences in achievement of target low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels are reported consistently in diabetic populations.1 7 However, there are relatively small differences by gender in initiation and provision of lipid lowering treatment.1 , 2 , 8 It is not yet clear whether these observations reflect less aggressive treatment intensification in women on the part of providers, poorer adherence to treatment on the part of women, or some combination of the two. Furthermore, if women are treated less aggressively than men, it is unknown whether this appropriately reflects their lower overall cardiovascular risk once other risk factors are taken into account.

Nevertheless, the obvious consequence of the higher LDL levels seen in diabetic women is that existing LDL < 100 mg/dl quality measures are attained less frequently in women than in men. For example, among patients using Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical facilities in fiscal year (FY) 2011, the gender difference was 14 % for those with diabetes, and 16 % for those with ischemic heart disease (IHD), suggesting significant quality gaps between women and men.9 This difference occurs even as the VA exceeds the private sector on many measures of performance for both gender-specific and gender-neutral care,5 , 10 , 11 and provides comparable quality of care to women and men veterans by most measures.12 The utility of this LDL target quality measure has come under serious scrutiny, however.13 Recent literature suggests that the method of treatment for hyperlipidemia may be as or more important than attainment of an LDL target,14 , 15 and professional society treatment guidelines now credit use of a statin in addition to achievement of low LDL levels.16 18 In 2012, in light of the shifting paradigm and evolving definition of high-quality care, the VA adopted a new quality measure for lipid management in diabetes that was developed by a workgroup of clinical and measurement experts and accounts for clinical action in addition to LDL levels (personal communication, Kerr 2011). Development of this measure followed similar work developing a clinical action performance measure for blood pressure management in the VA.19 Including the focus on clinical action deemphasizes target attainment and acknowledges the effectiveness of appropriate therapy—in this case, use of statins in diabetes.

In this study, we hypothesize that taking appropriate clinical action for lipid management into account will reduce estimates of gender disparities based on LDL thresholds alone among veterans with diabetes. If providers are appropriately using cardiovascular risk to tailor treatment, we also expect to see further narrowing of any gender differences among those with increased levels of cardiovascular risk, such as those patients with IHD and diabetes or with increasing age. Finally, we hypothesize that any persistent disparities with use of the clinical action measure will be explained in part by worse adherence among women.


Subjects and Study Design

We used data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW), a national repository comprising data from multiple VA clinical and administrative systems. Data included information on outpatient encounters; vital signs; ICD-9 diagnoses; prescription medication fills, doses, quantities and days’ supply; and laboratory values. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of data from women and men aged 50–75 with diabetes active in primary care at a VA medical center (VAMC) or community-based outpatient clinic (CBOC) during July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011. We identified patients with diabetes on the basis of two outpatient visits with ICD-9 codes for diabetes, or a total of ≥ 31 days of prescription diabetes medications filled in the 24 months prior to the study period. For the patient to be included in the study, one of these visits or fills needed to be in the 12 months prior to the start of the study period. Active patients were defined as those with ≥ two primary care clinic visits in the 24 months prior to the study period and ≥ one primary care clinic visit during the study period. Patients were assigned to a facility based upon the location of most primary care visits during the study period. We found 881 unique facilities.

We excluded those with ICD-9 codes for dialysis; pregnancy; liver, esophageal, or pancreatic cancer; death during the study period; or with limited life expectancy recorded in response to clinical reminders in the electronic medical record. The VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System’s Subcommittee on Human Studies approved this study.

Patient Data

Body mass index (BMI) was calculated from weight and height. We reported mean blood pressure and LDL and most recent hemoglobin A1C from the year prior to the study period. Comorbidities were identified using ICD-9-CM codes.20 We classified certain conditions as concordant, meaning that treatments for these conditions are generally related to and/or overlap with diabetes care.21 , 22 These included hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, renal disease, and cerebrovascular disease. All other conditions were considered non-concordant.

Clinical Action Quality Measure

The clinical action measure23 is intended to account for LDL target achievement as well as processes that are associated with positive results irrespective of intermediate outcomes.14 , 18 , 24 The measure was considered met in those instances where: index LDL < 100 mg/dL; or LDL ≥ 100 mg/dL and the patient was prescribed a moderate-dose or high-dose statin at the time of the test or within 90 days; or index LDL ≥ 100 mg/dL and the patient received other appropriate clinical action within 90 days. The last LDL value of the study period was the index LDL. Those with no LDL test recorded but who were prescribed a moderate or high dose statin passed the measure on the basis of the prescription. “Other appropriate clinical action” included starting, changing, or intensifying low-dose statin therapy, or finding an LDL < 100 mg/dL upon repeat testing. The measure limits credit for lipid-lowering medication use to statins only; other lipid-lowering medications are not definitively associated with reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. The measure also focuses on statins at a moderate dose, which have strong evidence for cardiovascular event reduction and total mortality.25 30 Moderate-dose statins are those that produce a 30–40 % decrease in LDL levels. Statins at low dose appear to be of limited benefit in reducing CVD risk, but because many patients may be unable to tolerate moderate dose statins, the measure credits starting a low dose statin as evidence of a reasonable provider attempt to improve lipid control. The definitions of low-dose, moderate-dose and high-dose statins are based on the relative potency of each statin in lowering LDL levels and are presented in the Appendix.

Statistical Analysis

We calculated the proportions of women and men who met the LDL < 100 mg/dL threshold measure and the clinical action measure, both for the entire identified population and for those with IHD. Using multilevel logistic regression models controlling for age and with facility as a random effect, we examined the association of gender with the likelihood of passing the LDL < 100 mg/dL threshold measure. We used sequential models to control for utilization factors, including the number of primary care visits and type of facility (VAMC or CBOC). We then further adjusted for indicators of cardiovascular risk: presence of IHD and BMI. These analyses were repeated using the clinical action measure as the outcome variable. We tested interactions between gender and both age and IHD for the clinical action measure. We compared the distribution of statin dose levels and examined LDL control by statin dose in women and men.

In order to explore the effect of adherence to statins in women and men, we used automated VA pharmacy data to calculate the continuous, multiple interval measure of gaps in therapy (CMG).31 , 32 The CMG has been shown to be a reliable estimate of patient adherence33 and is defined as: total number of days without medication/total number of days the patient should have been taking medication, expressed as a percentage. The larger the percent, the larger the refill gaps and presumed worse adherence. We calculated the CMG based on prescription fills over the 12 months preceding the index LDL to account for medication stockpiling from previous prescriptions. Medications which were not filled for ≥ 180 days were considered discontinued rather than counted as missing medication supply. We examined whether controlling for adherence in the full model would change the association between gender and having an LDL < 100 mg/dL.


The study included 21,780 women and 646,429 men (Table 1). While A1C and blood pressure levels were similar between women and men, women were younger (59.6 years vs. 63.9 years), had a higher BMI (34.2 ± 7.2 kg/m2 vs. 32.6 ± 6.3 kg/m2), higher mean LDL level (102 ± 34 mg/dL vs. 89 ± 29 mg/dL), and more non-concordant conditions. Women had a lower prevalence of IHD (16 % vs. 23 %), were less likely than men to be on either a moderate or a high dose statin (52 % vs. 57 %) and were less likely to be seen in a community-based outpatient center (CBOC).
Table 1

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics*


Women (n = 21,780)

Men (n = 646,429)

P value

Age (yrs)

59.6 (6.1)

63.9 (6.1)

< 0.0001

A1C (%)

7.3 (1.6)

7.3 (1.4)

< 0.0001

BMI (mg/kg2)

34.2 (7.2)

32.6 (6.3)

< 0.0001

Mean SBP (mmHg)

132 (14)

132 (14)


Mean DBP (mmHg)

74 (9)

75 (9)

< 0.0001

Mean LDL (mg/dl)

102 (34)

89 (29)

< 0.0001

Comorbidities (no.)§

4.5 (2.2)

4.3 (2.1)

< 0.0001

Non-concordant conditions (no.)

2.7 (1.9)

2.2 (1.8)

< 0.0001

Moderate dose statin use (%)




High dose statin use (%)




Ischemic heart disease (%)§



< 0.0001

Care received in community based clinic (%)



< 0.0001

A1C hemoglobin A1C, BMI body mass index, SBP systolic blood pressure, DBP diastolic blood pressure, LDL low-density lipoprotein

*Values are mean (SD) unless otherwise indicated. Mean value in year prior to study year. Most recent value from year prior to study year. §Comorbidities were identified on the basis of ICD-9 codes listed in the two years prior to the study year. Concordant conditions included those whose treatment is generally related to, or overlaps with, diabetes care and include hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, renal disease, and cerebrovascular disease. All others are considered non-concordant. Based on the statin dose at start of study year

Women were less likely than their male counterparts to meet either the LDL threshold measure or the clinical action measure (Table 2). Fifty-five percent of women and 68 % of men met the LDL threshold measure (difference = 13 %). Among those with IHD, women were still less likely than men to meet the LDL threshold measure (67 % vs. 81 %, difference = 14 %). Women were also less likely to meet the clinical action measure, although the difference was smaller (79 % vs. 85 %, difference = 6 %). Among those with IHD, the gender difference remained (84 % vs. 89 %, difference = 5 %).
Table 2

Passing Rates for Quality Measures (%)


All women (n = 21,780)

All men (n = 646,429)


P value

LDL < 100 mg/dL




< 0.0001

Clinical action measure*




< 0.0001


Women with IHD (n = 3,533)

Men with IHD (n = 192,038)



LDL < 100 mg/dL




< 0.0001

Clinical action measure*




< 0.0001

LDL low-density lipoprotein, IHD ischemic heart disease

*Clinical action measure defined as: LDL < 100 mg/dL; or LDL ≥ 100 mg/dL and the patient was prescribed a moderate or high-dose statin at the time of the test; or index LDL ≥ 100 mg/dL and the patient received other appropriate clinical action within 90 days. Those with no LDL test recorded, but who were prescribed a moderate or high dose statin, also passed the measure on the basis of the prescription. IHD = ischemic heart disease

The gender difference in meeting the clinical action measure was mostly explained by the lower rates of LDL target achievement among women, as clinical action was very similar in women and men with an LDL ≥ 100 mg/dL. Specifically, of those with an LDL above threshold, a similar proportion of women and men were on a moderate or high dose statin either at the time of LDL, within 90 days of the LDL, or in the absence of an LDL test (48 % vs. 50 %). In addition, equal proportions of women and men with LDL ≥ 100 mg/dL had a low-dose statin added or changed (3 %), had a dose increase (0.2 %) or had an LDL < 100 mg/dL on repeat testing (0.3 %).

In multilevel models, we found that adjustment for age, utilization factors, and cardiovascular risk explained some of the gender difference in meeting the LDL threshold measure, but not in meeting the clinical action measure (Table 3). While the odds ratio (OR) for women of meeting the LDL threshold measure increased from 0.51 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.49–0.53] when adjusting for age and facility alone to 0.61 (95 % CI 0.59–0.63) in the fully specified model, the estimate was essentially unchanged for the clinical action measure: 0.68 (95 % CI 0.66–0.71) with adjustment for age and facility alone, and 0.67 (95 % CI 0.65–0.70) in the fully specified model. Increasing age, care at a VAMC (vs. a CBOC), number of primary care practitioner (PCP) visits, and presence of IHD were all positively associated with meeting the clinical action measure, even though adjustment for them did not lead to a change in the odds that women met the measure.
Table 3

Adjusted Odds Ratios for Passing Lipid Management Quality Measures in Women Compared to Men*


LDL < 100 mg/dL

Clinical action measure

Age + facility

0.51 (0.49,0.53)

0.68 (0.66,0.71)

Age + facility + number of primary care visits + type of facility

0.60 (0.58,0.62)

0.64 (0.62,0.66)

Age + facility + number of primary care visits + type of facility + IHD§ + BMI

0.61 (0.59,0.63)

0.67 (0.65,0.70)

LDL low-density lipoprotein, IHD ischemic heart disease, BMI body mass index

*Odds ratios and 95 % confidence intervals Clinical action measure defined as: LDL < 100 mg/dL; or LDL ≥ 100 mg/dL and the patient was prescribed a moderate or high-dose statin at the time of the test; or index LDL ≥ 100 mg/dL and the patient received other appropriate clinical action within 90 days. Those with no LDL test recorded, but who were prescribed a moderate or high dose statin, also passed the measure on the basis of the prescription. VA medical center or CBOC-community-based outpatient clinic. §IHD-ischemic heart disease. BMI – body-mass index (kg/m2)

In addition to adjusting for average age, we examined whether the difference between women and men in meeting the clinical action measure decreased with increasing cardiovascular risk—either advancing age or IHD (Fig. 1). While increasing age and IHD were each positively associated with passing the measure, the effects of each were weaker among women (P for both interactions < 0.001). Among both women and men with IHD, increasing age was associated with decreased rates of meeting the clinical action measure. However, the gender gap actually widened with age in this high-risk group.
Figure 1.

Effects of age and ischemic heart disease on likelihood of passing clinical action measure for lipid management in diabetes, by gender.

The distribution of statin dose levels between women and men was similar (Table 4). At every dose level, however, women had a 12 mg/dL higher mean LDL value than did men. The CMG (i.e. the mean percent of days without medication) among women was 19 %; the mean in men was 16 % (mean difference = 3 %). Adjusting for adherence only slightly increased the estimate for the odds of a woman passing the LDL < 100 measure (0.65, 95 % CI 0.62–0.67).
Table 4

Statin Dose and LDL Control*†‡§


Women (n = 21,780)


Men (n = 646,429)



LDL level in mg/dL [mean(SD)]


LDL level in mg/dL [mean(SD)]

No statin


105 (38)


92 (32)



96 (34)


84 (28)



92 (33)


80 (28)



95 (37)


83 (31)

*Based on the statin dose at the time of index LDL. Percents do not total to 100 due to rounding. Pearson’s chi square testing the equality of groups has a p value of < 0.0001.

§Mean difference of LDL within each statin dose was significantly different by gender, with a p value < 0.0001


We found that accounting for appropriate clinical action in addition to achievement of LDL threshold levels decreased gender disparities in appropriate lipid management for diabetes from 13 % to 6 %. Among high-risk individuals with both diabetes and IHD, treatment was better for both women and men overall, but the gender gaps did not disappear. For those patients with LDL levels above threshold, clinical action for women and men was similar. Therefore, the persistent difference in the quality of lipid management was driven by women’s higher LDL levels at every statin dose level, including among those not on any statin. We did not find that the slightly worse adherence to statins among women fully explained these higher LDL levels. Older women and women with IHD were not treated as aggressively as their male counterparts.

The large difference in LDL levels that we report is similar in magnitude to those reported in other studies among diabetic populations both within and outside of the VA.1 5 , 7 , 34 However, the relevance of LDL levels alone as a measure of quality has been questioned, with increasing attention paid to appropriate method of treatment.13 In this study, we found that, among women and men aged 50–75 with diabetes who do not meet LDL targets, provision of statin therapy is very similar. In a previous study using data from the VA Diabetes Epidemiology Cohorts,8 we noted major lipid treatment disparities among younger veterans with diabetes. Statins are contraindicated in pregnant or breastfeeding women, so such a difference may reflect appropriate clinical decision-making. However, that study found only small differences in provision of lipid-lowering therapy and initiation of statins among older veterans, consistent with our current results. Studies in non-VA populations have reported similarly small gender differences in provision of lipid-lowering therapy among older adults.1 , 2 , 35 The present study extends this literature by applying up-to-date concepts of quality of care for lipid management that account for both LDL target achievement and appropriate clinical action. In addition, we focus on statins (the only lipid-lowering medication definitively tied to decreased cardiovascular risk). Recent quality reporting from the VA that applies the clinical action measure found similar results to ours.9 We confirm that report’s findings in a large, national population and explore the effect of multiple indicators of cardiovascular risk as well as adherence on gender differences in treatment.

It is noteworthy that LDL levels in women are higher without statin therapy, and remain significantly higher than those in men in the face of similar provider action and statin doses. The higher LDL levels among women on treatment may reflect higher starting levels before treatment, with providers being less likely to treat women to target due to their own beliefs about lower CVD risk in women,36 , 37 patient preferences38 40 or drug intolerance.41 Higher LDL levels may be acceptable if moderate dose statin exposure, rather than LDL target achievement alone, is ultimately a goal of treatment. If women’s higher LDL levels reflect worse adherence, however, the lower degree of statin exposure would be of concern. We found that gender differences in statin adherence were slight and did not explain the higher LDL levels. We found a degree of difference in statin adherence that is consistent with other studies,42 and it suggests that adherence to statins is not a greater problem for women than men in VA.

It is of concern, however, that both age and the presence of IHD had a lesser effect on pass rates among women than men. We also found that among those with IHD, the gender gap widened with increasing age. Greater age and IHD are associated with much higher 10-year risk of CVD in both genders. Statin therapy is similarly effective in women and men, for both primary and secondary prevention,43 45 and women should not receive a different level of treatment intensity than men. However, as for patients with diabetes as a whole, the reasons for the gender gap in particularly high-risk individuals are unclear and could lie at either the provider or the patient level. Future research and quality improvement efforts should focus on improving lipid management for these high-risk patients.

Our study has several strengths. It examines a national population with large numbers of women, and we were able to adjust for multiple confounders. It is also the first study of which we are aware that applies the newest understandings of quality of care for lipid management in diabetes to an examination of gender disparities. However, our study also has several limitations. The VA often outperforms non-VA settings in meeting quality indicators, and differences in the quality of care between women and men might be smaller than those in the general population.10 , 11 Although we used a one-year lookback period to assess adherence, the CMG likely does not fully account for medication stockpiling, especially among those who receive automated mail-order prescriptions. However, our finding of only a small gender difference in statin adherence is consistent with other studies. There are some limitations to CDW data that could affect the validity of measurement of performance on the clinical action measure. For example, we were not able to capture testing or prescriptions provided from outside of the VA system. However, as the measure can be passed in multiple ways, the likelihood of misclassifying an outcome is reduced. In addition, women are more likely to use non-VA care than are men, so that accounting for statin prescriptions outside of VA would likely decrease our estimates of gender disparities even further. Finally, we were not able to gather information on patient preferences or statin side effects from our administrative data. There is a paucity of data on these issues with respect to women and statins. Some studies have found that women’s perception of CVD risk is inaccurately low,46 and that they prioritize cholesterol screening below gender-specific screening.47 , 48 With regard to side effects, one large observational study found that women were less likely than men to develop serious myopathy.49 However, some have argued that, in general, the quality of data on differences in statin side effects by gender is poor, as meta-analyses of safety data do not disaggregate for women and do not explore gender-specific concerns, such as breast cancer and pregnancy complications.50 Gender differences in preferences or side effects may explain some differences in treatment approach, however, and should be explored in future studies.

Our results have important implications for policy, practice and research. Significant resources have been directed towards lowering LDL levels in women in VA, based on large and persistent gender disparities in meeting the LDL threshold measure. However, our use of a clinical action measure suggests that the actual quality of care for lipids in diabetic women and men, while not equivalent, is more similar than previously realized. Rather than focus on improving LDL levels in all women with diabetes, future efforts should ensure that patients with high cardiovascular risk are appropriately treated with statins when clinically indicated, feasible, and concordant with patient preferences.




We wish to acknowledge Mary Hogan, PhD, RN, for her contributions to the data analysis and interpretation, and B. Graeme Fincke, MD, for his contributions to data interpretation and editing of the manuscript.


This study was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration Office of Research and Development, Health Services Research and Development (QUERI RRP 09-111 and DIB 98-001); as well as by NIDDK (P60 DK-2057A).

Prior Presentations

These results were presented at the VA 2012 HSR&D/QUERI National Conference, Washington, D.C., July 2012, and were presented at the 72nd Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association, Philadelphia, June 2012.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.


The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government.


  1. 1.
    Ferrara A, Mangione CM, Kim C, Marrero DG, Curb D, Stevens M, et al. Sex disparities in control and treatment of modifiable cardiovascular disease risk factors among patients with diabetes: Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD) study. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(1):69–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gouni-Berthold I, Berthold HK, Mantzoros CS, Bohm M, Krone W. Sex disparities in the treatment and control of cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(7):1389–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kanaya AM, Grady D, Barrett-Connor E. Explaining the sex difference in coronary heart disease mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(15):1737–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shalev V, Chodick G, Heymann AD, Kokia E. Gender differences in healthcare utilization and medical indicators among patients with diabetes. Public Health. 2005;119(1):45–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tseng CL, Sambamoorthi U, Rajan M, Tiwari A, Frayne S, Findley P, et al. Are there gender differences in diabetes care among elderly Medicare enrolled veterans? J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(Suppl 3):S47–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wexler DJ, Grant RW, Meigs JB, Nathan DM, Cagliero E. Sex disparities in treatment of cardiac risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(3):514–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Winston GJ, Barr RG, Carrasquillo O, Bertoni AG, Shea S. Sex and racial/ethnic differences in cardiovascular disease risk factor treatment and control among individuals with diabetes in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Diabetes Care. 2009;32(8):1467–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vimalananda VG, Miller DR, Palnati M, Christiansen CL, Fincke BG. Gender disparities in lipid-lowering therapy among veterans with diabetes. Womens Health Issues. 2011;21(4 Suppl):S176–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wright SM, Schaefer J, Reyes-Harvey E, Francis J. Comparing the care of women and men veterans in the VA. Washington, D.C.: VA Office of Analytics and Business Intelligence White Paper to the U.S. Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Quality and Patient Safety, Veterans Health Administration; 2012.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Asch SM, McGlynn EA, Hogan MM, Hayward RA, Shekelle P, Rubenstein L, et al. Comparison of quality of care for patients in the Veterans Health Administration and patients in a national sample. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(12):938–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kerr EA, Gerzoff RB, Krein SL, Selby JV, Piette JD, Curb JD, et al. Diabetes care quality in the Veterans Affairs health care system and commercial managed care: The TRIAD study. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(4):272–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jha AK, Perlin JB, Steinman MA, Peabody JW, Ayanian JZ. Quality of ambulatory care for women and men in the Veterans Affairs health care system. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(8):762–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hayward RA, Krumholz HM. Three reasons to abandon low-density lipoprotein targets: an open letter to the adult treatment panel IV of the national institutes of health. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5(1):2–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kerr EA, Smith DM, Hogan MM, Hofer TP, Krein SL, Bermann M, et al. Building a better quality measure: Are some patients with ‘poor quality’ actually getting good care? Med Care. 2003;41(10):1173–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hayward RA, Hofer TP, Vijan S. Narrative review: lack of evidence for recommended low-density lipoprotein treatment targets: a solvable problem. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:520–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Drozda J Jr, Messer JV, Spertus J, Abramowitz B, Alexander K, Beam CT, et al. ACCF/AHA/AMA-PCPI 2011 performance measures for adults with coronary artery disease and hypertension: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on performance measures and the American Medical Association-Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement. Circulation. 2011;124(2):248–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Assessing quality of care for diabetes - conference final report. [Internet].: AHRQ; 2008; cited December 10, 2012]. Available from:
  18. 18.
    Selby JV, Uratsu CS, Fireman B, Schmittdiel JA, Peng T, Rodondi N, et al. Treatment intensification and risk factor control: toward more clinically relevant quality measures. Med Care. 2009;47(4):395–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kerr EA, Lucatorto MA, Holleman R, Hogan MM, Klamerus ML, Hofer TP, et al. Monitoring performance for blood pressure management among patients with diabetes mellitus: Too much of a good thing? Arch Intern Med. 2012;28:1–8.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yu W, Ravelo A, Wagner TH, Phibbs CS, Bhandari A, Chen S, et al. Prevalence and costs of chronic conditions in the VA health care system. Med Care Res Rev. 2003;60(3 Suppl):146S–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kerr EA, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Klamerus ML, Subramanian U, Hogan MM, Hofer TP. The role of clinical uncertainty in treatment decisions for diabetic patients with uncontrolled blood pressure. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(10):717–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Piette JD, Kerr EA. The impact of comorbid chronic conditions on diabetes care. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(3):725–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Beard AJ, Hofer TP, Lucatorto M, Downs JR, Klamerus ML, Holleman R, et al. Assessing appropriateness of lipid management among patients with diabetes: Moving from target to treatment. (in press, Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    O’Connor PJ, Bodkin NL, Fradkin J, Glasgow RE, Greenfield S, Gregg E, et al. Diabetes performance measures: current status and future directions. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(7):1651–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaborators, Kearney PM, Blackwell L, Collins R, Keech A, Simes J, et al. Efficacy of cholesterol-lowering therapy in 18,686 people with diabetes in 14 randomised trials of statins: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2008;371(9607):117–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Collins R, Armitage J, Parish S, Sleigh P, Peto R. Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol-lowering with simvastatin in 5963 people with diabetes: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2003;361(9374):2005–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. MRC/BHF heart protection study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;360(9326):7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Colhoun HM, Betteridge DJ, Durrington PN, Hitman GA, Neil HA, Livingstone SJ, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with atorvastatin in type 2 diabetes in the collaborative atorvastatin diabetes study (CARDS): multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;364(9435):685–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Study of the Effectiveness of Additional Reductions in Cholesterol and Homocysteine (SEARCH) Collaborative Group, Armitage J, Bowman L, Wallendszus K, Bulbulia R, Rahimi K, et al. Intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol with 80 mg versus 20 mg simvastatin daily in 12,064 survivors of myocardial infarction: a double-blind randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;376(9753):1658–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pedersen TR, Faergeman O, Kastelein JJ, Olsson AG, Tikkanen MJ, Holme I, et al. High-dose atorvastatin vs usual-dose simvastatin for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction: the IDEAL study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005;294(19):2437–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Choo PW, Rand CS, Inui TS, Lee ML, Cain E, Cordeiro-Breault M, et al. Validation of patient reports, automated pharmacy records, and pill counts with electronic monitoring of adherence to antihypertensive therapy. Med Care. 1999;37(9):846–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Steiner JF, Prochazka AV. The assessment of refill compliance using pharmacy records: methods, validity, and applications. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(1):105–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Steiner JF, Koepsell TD, Fihn SD, Inui TS. A general method of compliance assessment using centralized pharmacy records. description and validation. Med Care. 1988;26(8):814–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wexler DJ, Grant RW, Meigs JB, Nathan DM, Cagliero E. Sex disparities in treatment of cardiac risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(3):514–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kim C, Kerr EA, Bernstein SJ, Krein SL. Gender disparities in lipid management: the presence of disparities depends on the quality measure. Am J Manage Care. 2006;12(3):133–6.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pregler J, Freund KM, Kleinman M, Phipps MG, Fife RS, Gams B, et al. The heart truth professional education campaign on women and heart disease: needs assessment and evaluation results. J Women’s Health (Larchmt). 2009;18(10):1541–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bates TR, Connaughton VM, Watts GF. Non-adherence to statin therapy: a major challenge for preventive cardiology. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2009;10(18):2973–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nau DP, Ellis JJ, Kline-Rogers EM, Mallya U, Eagle KA, Erickson SR. Gender and perceived severity of cardiac disease: evidence that women are “tougher”. Am J Med. 2005;118(11):1256–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mosca L, Mochari-Greenberger H, Dolor RJ, Newby LK, Robb KJ. Twelve-year follow-up of American women’s awareness of cardiovascular disease risk and barriers to heart health. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010;3(2):120–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fung V, Sinclair F, Wang H, Dailey D, Hsu J, Shaber R. Patients’ Perspectives on nonadherence to statin therapy: a focus-group study. Perm J. 2010;14(1):4–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kiortsis DN, Filippatos TD, Mikhailidis DP, Elisaf MS, Liberopoulos EN. Statin-associated adverse effects beyond muscle and liver toxicity. Atherosclerosis. 2007;195(1):7–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mann DM, Woodward M, Muntner P, Falzon L, Kronish I. Predictors of nonadherence to statins: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Pharmacother. 2010;44(9):1410–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kostis WJ, Cheng JQ, Dobrzynski JM, Cabrera J, Kostis JB. Meta-analysis of statin effects in women versus men. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(6):572–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shepherd J, Blauw GJ, Murphy MB, Bollen EL, Buckley BM, Cobbe SM, et al. Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;360(9346):1623–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cheung BM, Lauder IJ, Lau CP, Kumana CR. Meta-analysis of large randomized controlled trials to evaluate the impact of statins on cardiovascular outcomes. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;57(5):640–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mosca L, Jones W, King K, Ouyang P, Redberg R, Hill M. Awareness, perception, and knowledge of heart disease risk and prevention among women in the United States. American Heart Association Women’s Heart Disease and Stroke Campaign Task Force. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:506–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cooper G, Goodwin M, Stange K. The delivery of preventive services for patient symptoms. Am J Prev Med. 2001;21:177–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stange K, Flocke S, Goodwin M, Kelly R, Zyzanski S. Direct observation of rates of preventive service delivery in community family practice. Prev Med. 2000;31:167–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Unintended effects of statins in men and women in England and Wales: population based cohort study using the QResearch database. BMJ. 2010;340:c2197.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rosenberg H, Allard D. Women and statin use: a women’s health advocacy perspective. Scand Cardiovasc J. 2008;42(4):268–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Preiss D, Seshasai SRK, Welsh P, et al. Risk of incident diabetes with intensive-dose compared with moderate-dose statin therapy: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2011;24:2556–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    VA Pharmacy Benefits Management. Statin Criteria for Use (Pravastatin, Rosuvastatin, Atorvastatin, Fluvastatin, Fluvastatin XL); VHA Pharmacy Benefits Management (PBM) Services, Medical Advisory Panel (MAP) and VISN Pharmacist Executives (VPEs); 2011. Accessed May 8, 2012, at
  53. 53.
    Cannon CP, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes. NEJM. 2004;350(15):1495–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cannon CP, Steinberg BA, Murphy SA, et al. Meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcomes trials comparing intensive versus moderate statin therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:438–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Varsha G. Vimalananda
    • 1
    • 2
  • Donald R. Miller
    • 1
    • 3
  • Timothy P. Hofer
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • Robert G. Holleman
    • 4
  • Mandi L. Klamerus
    • 4
  • Eve A. Kerr
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Veterans Affairs Center for Health Quality, Outcomes and Economic ResearchEdith Nourse Rogers Memorial VA Medical CenterBedfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of Medicine, Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes and NutritionBoston University School of MedicineBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Health Policy and ManagementBoston University School of Public HealthBostonUSA
  4. 4.Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management ResearchVA Ann Arbor Healthcare SystemAnn ArborUSA
  5. 5.Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of Michigan Medical SchoolAnn ArborUSA
  6. 6.Michigan Diabetes Research and Training Center (MDRTC)University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations