Use of secondary prevention medications in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas: an analysis of 41 925 myocardial infarctions in Australia

Adam C Livori,Zanfina Ademi,Jenni Ilomäki,Derk Pol,Jedidiah I Morton,J Simon Bell
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwad360
2024-03-27
Abstract:Aims: People in remote areas may have more difficulty accessing healthcare following myocardial infarction (MI) than people in metropolitan areas. We determined whether remoteness was associated with initial and 12-month use of secondary prevention medications following MI in Victoria, Australia. Methods and results: We included all people alive at least 90 days after discharge following MI between July 2012 and June 2017 in Victoria, Australia (n = 41 925). We investigated dispensing of P2Y12 inhibitors (P2Y12i), statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs), and beta-blockers within 90 days after discharge. We estimated 12-month medication use using proportion of days covered (PDC). Remoteness was determined using the Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA). Data were analysed using adjusted parametric regression models stratified by ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI). There were 10 819 STEMI admissions and 31 106 NSTEMI admissions. Following adjustment across NSTEMI and STEMI, there were no medication classes dispensed in the 90-day post-discharge that differed in a clinically significant way from the least remote (ARIA = 0) to the most remote (ARIA = 4.8) areas. The largest difference for NSTEMI was ACEI/ARB, with 71% (95% confidence interval 70-72%) vs. 80% (76-83%). For STEMI, it was statins with 89% (88-90%) vs. 95% (91-97%). Predicted PDC for STEMI and NSTEMI was not clinically significant across remoteness, with the largest difference in NSTEMI being P2Y12i with 48% (47-50%) vs. 55% (51-59%), and in STEMI, it was ACEI/ARB with 68% (67-69%) vs. 76% (70-80%). Conclusion: Remoteness does not appear to be a clinically significant driver for medication use following MI. Possible differences in cardiovascular outcomes in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas are not likely to be explained by access to secondary prevention medications.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?