Key result
Active EHR alerts linked to ~4.7-fold higher odds of ezetimibe prescribing after myocardial infarction.
Why the study?
To evaluate the impact of changing from a passive to an active electronic health record alert on guideline-recommended lipid-lowering therapy prescriptions in patients with recent myocardial infarction.
Does an active, nondismissible electronic health record alert improve lipid-lowering therapy intensification and LDL-C testing in patients with recent myocardial infarction compared to a passive alert?
Cohort (n=1,320)
Yes
Does an active, nondismissible electronic health record alert improve lipid-lowering therapy intensification and LDL-C testing in patients with recent myocardial infarction compared to a passive alert?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
An active, nondismissible electronic health record alert effectively increases prescriptions for nonstatin lipid-lowering therapies (ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors) and improves LDL-C monitoring post-MI compared with a passive, dismissible alert.
BACKGROUND: This observational, quality initiative evaluated the impact of changing from a passive (dismissible) to an active (nondismissible without action) electronic health record alert on guideline-recommended lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) prescriptions in patients with recent myocardial infarction at risk for secondary events. METHODS: We sequentially recruited a retrospective passive-alert (February 2018-July 2019; n=733) and a prospective active-alert (August 2020-January 2022; n=587) cohort of patients who triggered an alert to intensify LLT or order a low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) test if they had a recent myocardial infarction (within 12 months) and elevated (≥70 mg/dL) or missing LDL-C. Prescribed LLTs and cumulative percentages of patients with missing or LDL-C <70 and <55 mg/dL were assessed in 6-month periods up to 24 months. Reasons for not intensifying LLTs were recorded with the active alert. RESULTS: During 24 months, statin and high-intensity statin use increased from 59% to 87% and from 39% to 69%, respectively, in the passive-alert cohort. In the active-alert cohort, statin and high-intensity statin use were high and changed minimally (79% to 80% and 70% to 73%), but ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor use increased from 12% to 35% and from 2% to 8% (odds ratio, 4.69 [95% CI, 3.22-6.96] and 4.07 [95% CI, 1.92-9.46]), respectively. LDL-C testing and LDL-C goal attainment improved in both cohorts. LDL-C not current (41.7%) was the most common reason for not intensifying LLT. CONCLUSIONS: Continued efforts are needed to encourage guideline-directed LLT intensification for patients with a recent myocardial infarction who are at risk of another cardiac event.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Karalis et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Recent myocardial infarction with elevated or missing LDL-C (n=1,320). Active (nondismissible) electronic health record alert vs. Passive (dismissible) electronic health record alert was evaluated on Postindex prescription for ezetimibe (OR 4.69, 95% CI 3.22-6.96). An active, nondismissible electronic health record alert significantly increased the odds of prescribing ezetimibe (OR 4.69) and PCSK9 inhibitors (OR 4.07) compared with a passive alert in patients with recent myocardial infarction.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: