No outside funding supported this research. Chan is supported by grants from the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (1R01HL123980 and K23HL102224). Tran, Stockl, Lew, and Solow are employed by Optum. Kao and Caglar were employed by Optum when this study was conducted. Chan serves as an advisor and consultant to OptumRx but received no compensation for work on this manuscript. Stockl is also employed by the Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy. Spertus reports personal fees from United Healthcare and grants from Lilly, outside of the submitted work. None of the authors have any other financial conflicts of interest to report. Tran and Chan supervised this study, had full access to all of the data in the study, and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study design and concept were contributed by Tran and Chan. Tran and Kao collected the data, with analysis and interpretation performed by all the authors. Statistical analysis was performed by Caglar and Kao, and Tran and Chan drafted the manuscript. All authors were involved in the critical revision of the manuscript.

thetical cohort of 1,000 PCI patients/year (STEMI= 6.4%, NSTEMI/UA= 16.7%, stable angina= 76.9%) treated with heparin+/-GPI (weighted average of 30.0% GPI use across diagnoses), use of bivalirudin+cangrelor+2.8% GPI provided a hospital $0.95MM in clinical value. Cost-offsets were derived from a reduction in GPI use, lower ischemic and bleeding events. Sensitivity was assessed in using heparin+/-GPI; GPI%= 70.6% (extreme from APEX-AMI trial) vs. bivalirudin+cangrelor+9.7% GPI where the clinical value was estimated at $1.59MM. ConClusions: Use of bivalidudin+cangrelor during PCI delivers an estimated clinical value of at least $950 per PCI-patient, $1,590 in STEMI patients with improved clinical outcomes.

Background: In 2013, national organizations issued new cholesterol guidelines to emphasize evidence-based treatment with moderate- to high-dose statins for patients at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), which includes coronary heart disease, stroke, and peripheral arterial disease. Whether these new guidelines have influenced patterns of treatment one year after their dissemination is unknown. Methods: Using pharmacy and medical claims from a large U.S. health insurance organization, we identified 610,535 adult patients with ASCVD (n=301,440) or diabetes mellitus (n=309,095) and examined statin treatment rates before and one year after the new cholesterol guidelines. Among patients receiving statins post-guidelines, we also evaluated whether patients were treated with guideline-recommended intensity of statin therapy. A standardized difference (SD) of at least 10% was required to declare the effect size meaningful. Results: Overall, there was no change in statin treatment rates for patients with ASCVD (48.0% before guidelines vs. 47.3% after, SD [1.4]) or diabetes (50% vs. 51.5% after, SD [2.4]). Statin initiation rates among patients not on statins pre-guidelines were 10.1% in patients with ASCVD and 14.3% in patients with diabetes, and these gains were offset by 13.0% and 12.2% statin discontinuation rates among ASCVD and diabetes patients, respectively. Among patients taking statins one year post-guidelines, 80% of patients with ASCVD and < 75 years of age were not on guideline-recommended high-intensity statin therapy, whereas >75% of patients with ASCVD and >75 years of age or patients with diabetes were on moderate- or high-intensity statin treatment. Conclusion: One year after dissemination of the new 2013 cholesterol guidelines, overall treatment rates with statins among patients with ASCVD and diabetes have not changed appreciably, and many patients remain either untreated or under-treated. Character Count: 1683