The efficiency of cardiovascular risk assessment: do the right patients get statin treatment?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To evaluate targeting of statin prescribing for primary prevention to those with high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.Design
Two cohort studies including the general population and initiators of statins aged 35-74 years.Setting
UK primary care records in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.Patients
3.8 million general population patients and 300 914 statin users.Intervention
Statin prescribing.Main outcome measures
Statin prescribing by CVD risk; observed 5-year CVD risks; variability between practices.Results
Statin prescribing increased substantially over time to patients with high 10-year CVD risk (≥ 20%): 7.0% of these received a statin prior to 2007, and 30.4% in 2007 onwards. Prescribing to patients with low risk (<15%) also increased (from 1.9% to 5.0%). Only about half the patients initiating statin treatment were high risk according to CVD risk score. The 5-year CVD risks, as observed during statin treatment, reduced over calendar time (from 17.0% to 7.1%). There was a large variation between general practices in the percentage of high-risk patients prescribed a statin in 2007 onwards, ranging from 8.2% to 61.5%. For low-risk patients, these varied from 2.1% to 29.1%.Conclusions
There appeared to be substantive overuse in low CVD risk and underuse in high CVD risk (600 000 and 850 000 patients, respectively, in the UK since 2007). There is wide variation between practices in statin prescribing to patients at high CVD risk. There is a clear need for randomised trials for the best strategy to target statin treatment and manage CVD risk for primary prevention.
SUBMITTER: van Staa TP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3812879 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Although patients with diabetes have 2 to 4 times increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than individuals without diabetes, recent studies indicate that a significant part of patients are in a lower cardiovascular risk category. Men younger than 35 years, women younger than 45 years, patients with diabetes duration of less than 10 years without other risk factors have a much lower risk than patients who have traditional cardiovascular risk factors, and subclinical or established coronary artery disease (CAD). These patients are not risk equivalent as stated in previous studies. On the contrary, when in the presence of traditional risk factors or evidence of subclinical coronary disease (e.g. high coronary calcium score), the coronary risk is much increased and patients may be classified at a higher-risk category. Recent guidelines do not anymore consider diabetes as a CAD risk equivalent and recommend cardiovascular risk stratification for primary prevention. Stratification of diabetic patients improves accuracy in prediction of subclinical CAD, silent ischemia and future cardiovascular events. Stratification also discriminates higher from lower risk patients who may need intensive statin or aspirin prevention, while avoiding overtreatment in lower risk cases. It may also allow the clinician to decide whether to intensify risk reduction actions through specific newer drugs for glucose control such as SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists, which recently have shown additional cardiovascular protector effect. This review addresses the assessment of cardiovascular disease risk using traditional and non-traditional cardiovascular risk factors. It also reviews the use of risk calculators and new reclassification tools, focusing on the detection of subclinical atherosclerosis as well as silent ischemia in the asymptomatic patients with diabetes.
| S-EPMC5397821 | biostudies-other
Project description:Ample evidence supports the use of statin therapy for secondary prevention in patients with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but evidence is wanting in the case of primary prevention, low-risk individuals, and elderly adults 65+. Statins are effective in lowering low-density lipoprotein (LDL), which has long been a target for treatment decisions. We discuss the weakening dependence between cholesterol levels and mortality as a function of age and highlight recent findings on lipoprotein subfractions and other superior markers of ASCVD risk. The efficacy of statins is compared for distinct subsets of patients based on age, diabetes, ASCVD, and coronary artery calcium (CAC) status. Most cardiovascular risk calculators heavily weight age and overestimate one's absolute risk of ASCVD, particularly in very old adults. Improvements in risk assessment enable the identification of specific patient populations that benefit most from statin treatment. Derisking is particularly important for adults over 75, in whom treatment benefits are reduced and adverse musculoskeletal effects are amplified. The CAC score stratifies the benefit effect size obtainable with statins, and forms of coenzyme Q are discussed for improving patient outcomes. Robust risk estimator tools and personalized, evidence-based approaches are needed to optimally reduce cardiovascular events and mortality rates through administration of cholesterol-lowering medications.
| S-EPMC7700563 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk-prediction models are used to identify high-risk individuals and guide statin initiation. However, these models are usually derived from individuals who might initiate statins during follow-up. We present a simple approach to address statin initiation to predict "statin-naive" CVD risk. We analyzed primary care data (2004-2017) from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink for 1,678,727 individuals (aged 40-85 years) without CVD or statin treatment history at study entry. We derived age- and sex-specific prediction models including conventional risk factors and a time-dependent effect of statin initiation constrained to 25% risk reduction (from trial results). We compared predictive performance and measures of public-health impact (e.g., number needed to screen to prevent 1 event) against models ignoring statin initiation. During a median follow-up of 8.9 years, 103,163 individuals developed CVD. In models accounting for (versus ignoring) statin initiation, 10-year CVD risk predictions were slightly higher; predictive performance was moderately improved. However, few individuals were reclassified to a high-risk threshold, resulting in negligible improvements in number needed to screen to prevent 1 event. In conclusion, incorporating statin effects from trial results into risk-prediction models enables statin-naive CVD risk estimation and provides moderate gains in predictive ability but had a limited impact on treatment decision-making under current guidelines in this population.
| S-EPMC8485151 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines prioritize primary prevention statin therapy based on 10-year absolute risk (AR10) of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, given the same AR10, patients with higher levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) experience greater absolute risk reduction from statin therapy. Objectives:To estimate the cost-effectiveness of expanding preventive statin treatment eligibility from standard care to patients at borderline risk (AR10, 5.0%-7.4%) for ASCVD and with high levels of LDL-C and to estimate cost-effectiveness of statin treatment across ranges of age, sex, AR10, and LDL-C levels. Design, Setting, and Participants:This study evaluated 100 simulated cohorts, each including 1 million ASCVD-free survey respondents (50% men and 50% women) aged 40 years at baseline. Cohorts were created by probabilistic sampling of the 1999-2014 US National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from the perspective of the US health care sector. The CVD Policy Model microsimulation version projected lifetime health and cost outcomes. Probability of first-ever coronary heart disease or stroke event was estimated by analysis of 6 pooled US cohort studies and recalibrated to match contemporary event rates. Other model variables were derived from national surveys, meta-analyses, and published literature. Data were analyzed from May 15, 2018, through June 10, 2019. Exposures:Four statin treatment strategies were compared: (1) treat all patients with AR10 of at least 7.5%, diabetes, or LDL-C of at least 190 mg/dL (standard care); (2) add treatment for borderline risk and LDL-C levels of 160 to 189 mg/dL; (3) add treatment for borderline risk and LDL-C levels of 130 to 159 mg/dL; and (4) add treatment for remainder of patients with AR10 of at least 5.0%. Statin treatment was also compared with no statin treatment in age, sex, AR10, and LDL-C strata. Main Outcomes and Measures:Lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs (2019 US dollars) were projected and discounted 3.0% annually. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results:In these 100 simulated cohorts, each with 1 million patients aged 40 years at baseline (50% women and 50% men), adding preventive statins to individuals with borderline AR10 and LDL-C levels of 160 to 189 mg/dL would be cost-saving; further treating borderline AR10 and LDL-C levels of 130 to 159 mg/dL would also be cost-saving; and treating all individuals with AR10 of at least 5.0% would be highly cost-effective ($33?558/QALY) and would prevent the most ASCVD events. Within age, AR10, and sex categories, individuals with higher baseline LDL-C levels gained more QALYs from statin therapy. Cost-effectiveness increased with LDL-C level and AR10. Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, lifetime statin treatment of patients in a hypothetical cohort with borderline ASCVD risk and LDL-C levels of 160 to 189 mg/dL was found to be cost-saving. Results suggest that treating all patients at borderline risk regardless of LDL-C level would likely be highly cost-effective.
| S-EPMC6714024 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBenefit-targeted statin prescribing may be superior to risk-targeted statin prescribing (the current standard), but the impact and efficiency of this approach are unclear.Methods and resultsWe analyzed the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) using an open-source model (the Prevention Impact and Efficiency Model) to compare targeting of statin therapy according to expected benefit (benefit-targeted) versus baseline risk (risk-targeted) in terms of projected population-level impact and efficiency. Impact was defined as relative % reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the US population for the given strategy compared to current statin treatment patterns; and efficiency as the number needed to treat over 10 years (NNT10, average and maximum) to prevent each atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event. Benefit-targeted moderate-intensity statin therapy at a treatment threshold of 2.3% expected 10-year absolute risk reduction could produce a 5.7% impact (95% confidence interval, 4.8-6.7). This is approximately equivalent to the potential impact of risk-targeted therapy at a treatment threshold of 5% 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk (5.6% impact [4.7-6.6]). Whereas the estimated maximum NNT10 is much improved for benefit-targeted versus risk-targeted therapy at these equivalent-impact thresholds (43.5 vs 180), the average NNT10 is nearly equivalent (24.2 vs 24.6). Reaching 10% impact (half the Healthy People 2020 impact objective, loosely defined) is theoretically possible with benefit-targeted moderate-intensity statins of persons with expected absolute risk reduction >2.3% if we expand age eligibility and account for treatment of all persons with diabetes mellitus or with low-density lipoprotein >190 mg/dL (impact=12.4%; average NNT10=23.0).ConclusionsBenefit-based targeting of statin therapy provides modest gains in efficiency over risk-based prescribing and could theoretically help attain approximately half of the Healthy People 2020 impact goal with reasonable efficiency.
| S-EPMC5523747 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite enormous advances in both surgical and pharmacological treatment, cardiovascular diseases are still the most common cause of morbidity and disability in the western world [...].
| S-EPMC9781134 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite major progress in the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases, women remain an underdiagnosed and insufficiently treated group, with higher hospitalization and death rates compared to men. Obesity, more frequently encountered in women, raises the risk of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular diseases as women age. There are some differences based on sex regarding the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of dyslipidemia, as it has been observed that women are less frequently prescribed statins and, when they are, they receive lower doses, even after myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization. Real-life data show that, compared to men, women are at higher risk of non-adherence to statin treatment and are more predisposed to discontinue treatment because of side effects. Statin metabolism has some particularities in women, due to a lower glomerular filtration rate, higher body fat percentage, and overall faster statin metabolism. In women of fertile age, before initiating statin treatment, contraception methods should be discussed because statins may have teratogenic effects. Older women have a higher likelihood of polypharmacy, with greater potential for drug interactions when prescribing a statin.
| S-EPMC7400394 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe updated national guidelines for cardiovascular risk assessment and lipid modification in the UK and US expand the indications for statin therapy in primary prevention to adults with moderate risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) but many adults at high CVD risk remain untreated in both countries. We set out to identify treatment gaps in English and American adults at moderate and high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and to estimate the number of CVD events that would be prevented from expanding statin therapy to those who are currently untreated.MethodsWe used nationally representative samples of 10,375 English adults and 7,687 US adults aged 40-75 years and free of existing CVD from the Health Survey for England 2009-2013, and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007-2012 in the US. We used the risk algorithms and the risk thresholds for statin therapy recommended by each country's national guideline to categorize the survey participants into moderate-risk (?10% to <20% 10-year risk of CVD in England and ?7.5% to <20% risk in the US) or high-risk (?20%risk) and simulated the number of events that would be prevented from expansion of statin therapy to those currently untreated.ResultsClose to half of adults at high CVD risk in England (46.0%) and the US (49.7%) were not receiving statins. Expanding statin use to 1.45 million high-risk adults in England would save 101,000 (95% CI = 81,000-120,000) CVD events in the next 10 years compared with 128,000 (103,000-154,000) CVD events that would be prevented from expanding treatment to 3.64 million untreated moderate-risk adults. In the US, expanding statin use to 5.27 million untreated high-risk adults would save 384,000 (305,000-461,000) CVD events over 10 years compared with 616,000 (493,000-738,000) CVD events that would be prevented from treating 20.29 million untreated moderate-risk adults.ConclusionsIn both England and the US, expanding statin therapy to untreated moderate-risk adults would prevent a comparable number of events as expanding statin use to a much smaller number of currently untreated high-risk adults. A large potential for CVD prevention remains from improving coverage of statin therapy among high-risk adults.
| S-EPMC5862405 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Food and Drug Administration issued guidance for evaluating the cardiovascular risk of new diabetes mellitus drugs in 2008. Accumulating evidence from several completed trials conducted within this framework raises questions as to whether requiring safety outcome studies for all new diabetes mellitus therapies remains justified. Given the burden of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes, the focus should shift towards cardiovascular outcome studies designed to evaluate efficacy (i.e. to determine the efficacy of a drug over placebo or standard care) rather than demonstrating that risk is not increased by a pre-specified safety margin. All stakeholders are responsible for ensuring that new drug approvals occur under conditions of appropriate safety and effectiveness. It is also a shared responsibility to avoid unnecessary hurdles that may compromise access to useful drugs and threaten the sustainability of health systems. It is critical to renew this debate so that stakeholders can collectively determine the optimal approach for developing new drugs to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus.
| S-EPMC4907355 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRisk evaluation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains the cornerstone of primary prevention. The cardiovascular risk assessment can guide the decision-making on various preventive measures such as initiating or deferring statin therapy. Thus, our study aimed to assess the physicians' knowledge, attitude, and practices regarding atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases risk assessment. Also, we evaluated the physician-patient discussion and counseling practices before statin therapy initiation in concordance with recommendations from the latest clinical practice guideline.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted between November 2020 and January 2021. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 350 physicians (GPs, residents, specialists, and consultants). Two trained pharmacists distributed the questionnaires in 5 major tertiary governmental hospitals and more than ten private hospitals. Also, private clinics were targeted so that we get a representative sample of physicians at different workplaces.ResultsA total of 270 physicians filled the questionnaire out of 350 physicians approached, with 14 being excluded due to high missing data, giving a final response rate of 73%. Participants had suboptimal knowledge and practices with a high positive attitude toward atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases risk assessment. The knowledge and practices were higher among consultants, participants from the cardiology department, those with experience years of more than nine years, and those who reported following a specific guideline for cholesterol management or using a risk calculator in their practice. Notably, the risk assessment and counseling practices were lower among physicians who reported seeing more patients per day.ConclusionPhysicians had overall low knowledge, suboptimal practices, and a high positive attitude toward cardiovascular risk assessment. Therefore, physicians' training and continuing medical education regarding cholesterol management and primary prevention clinical practice guidelines are recommended. Also, the importance of adherence to clinical practice guidelines and their impact on clinical outcomes should be emphasized.
| S-EPMC9135296 | biostudies-literature