Dataset Information

Predictors of cholesterol treatment discussions and statin prescribing for primary cardiovascular disease prevention in community health centers.

ABSTRACT: Although cholesterol guidelines emphasize cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk to guide primary prevention, predictors of statin use in practice are unknown. We aimed to identify factors associated with a cholesterol treatment discussion and statin prescribing in a high-risk population.We used data from a trial conducted among participants in community health centers without CVD or diabetes and a 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk?10%. Cholesterol treatment discussion was assessed at 6months and statin prescription at 1year. We used logistic regressions to identify factors associated with each outcome.We analyzed 646 participants (89% male, mean age 60±9.5years). Cholesterol treatment discussion occurred in 19% and statin prescription in 12% of participants. Ten-year CHD risk was not associated with treatment discussion (OR 1.11 per 1 SD increase, 95% CI 0.91-1.33) but was associated with statin prescription (OR 1.41 per 1 SD increase, 95% CI 1.13-1.75) in unadjusted models. After adjusting for traditional CVD risk factors that contribute to CHD risk, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was independently associated with statin prescription (OR 1.82 per 1 SD increase, 95% CI 1.66-1.99). Antihypertensive medication use was independently associated with both cholesterol treatment discussion (OR 3.68, 95% CI 2.35-5.75) and statin prescription (OR 3.98, 95% CI 3.30-4.81). Other drivers of CVD risk (age, smoking, and systolic blood pressure) were not associated with statin use.Single risk factor management strongly influences cholesterol treatment discussions and statin prescribing patterns. Interventions that promote risk-based statin utilization are needed.Clinicaltrials.gov.: NCT01610609.

SUBMITTER: Karmali KN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5040465 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Predictors of cholesterol treatment discussions and statin prescribing for primary cardiovascular disease prevention in community health centers.

Karmali Kunal N KN Lee Ji-Young JY Brown Tiffany T Persell Stephen D SD

Preventive medicine 20160416

<h4>Background</h4>Although cholesterol guidelines emphasize cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk to guide primary prevention, predictors of statin use in practice are unknown. We aimed to identify factors associated with a cholesterol treatment discussion and statin prescribing in a high-risk population.<h4>Methods</h4>We used data from a trial conducted among participants in community health centers without CVD or diabetes and a 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk≥10%. Cholesterol treatment ...[more]

PMID: 27090436

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStatins are an important intervention for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. We aimed to establish the variation in primary preventive treatment for CVD with statins in the English population.MethodsCross sectional analyses of 6155 English primary care practices with 40,017,963 patients in 2006/7. Linear regression was used to model prescribing rates of statins for primary CVD prevention as a function of IMD (index of multiple deprivation) quintile, proportion of population from an ethnic minority, and age over 65 years. Defined Daily Doses (DDD) were used to calculate the numbers of patients receiving a statin. Statin prescriptions were allocated to primary and secondary prevention based on the prevalence of CVD and stroke.ResultsWe estimated that 10.5% (s.d.3.7%) of the registered population were dispensed a statin for any indication and that 6.3% (s.d. 3.0%) received a statin for primary CVD prevention. The regression model explained 21.2% of the variation in estimates of prescribing for primary prevention. Practices with higher prevalence of hypertension (β co-efficient 0.299 p <0.001) and diabetes (β co-efficient 0.566 p < 0.001) prescribed more statins for primary prevention. Practices with higher levels of ethnicity (β co-efficient-0.026 p <0.001), greater deprivation (β co-efficient -0.152 p < 0.001) older patients (β co-efficient -0.032 p 0.002), larger lists (β co-efficient -0.085, p < 0.001) and were more rural (β co-efficient -0.121, p0.026) prescribed fewer statins. In a small proportion of practices (0.5%) estimated prescribing rates for statins were so low that insufficient prescriptions were issued to meet the predicted secondary prevention requirements of their registered population.ConclusionsAbsolute estimated prescribing rates for primary prevention of CVD were 6.3% of the population. There was evidence of social inequalities in statin prescribing for primary prevention. These findings support the recent introduction of a financial incentive for primary prevention of CVD in England.

Project description:IntroductionPrevious research has shown that statin adherence for the primary prevention of CVD is lower compared to secondary prevention populations. Therefore the aim of this systematic review was to review predictors of statin adherence for the primary prevention of CVD.MethodsA systematic search of papers published between Jan 1984 and May 2017 was conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, EMbase and CINAHL databases. A study was eligible for inclusion if; 1) it was a study of the general population or of patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, diabetes or arthritis; 2) statins were prescribed; 3) adherence was defined and measured as the extent to which patients followed their statin regimen during the period of prescription, and 4) it was an original trial or observational study (excluding case reports). A study was subsequently excluded if 1) results were not presented separately for primary prevention; 2) it was a trial of an intervention (for example patient education). Papers were reviewed by two researchers and consensus agreed with a third. A quality assessment (QA) tool was used to formally assess each included article. To evaluate the effect of predictors, data were quantitatively and qualitatively synthesised.ResultsIn total 19 studies met the inclusion criteria and nine were evaluated as high quality using the QA tool. The proportion of patients classed as "adherent" ranged from 17.8% to 79.2%. Potential predictors of statin adherence included traditional risk factors for CVD such as age, being male, diabetes and hypertension. Income associated with adherence more strongly in men than women, and highly educated men were more likely and highly educated women less likely to be adherent. Alcohol misuse and high BMI associated with non-adherence. There was no association between polypharmacy and statin adherence. The evidence base for the effect of other lifestyle factors and health beliefs on statin adherence was limited.ConclusionCurrent evidence suggests that patients with more traditional risk factors for CVD are more likely to be adherent to statins. The implications for future research are discussed.

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.

Project description:Statin therapy is the cornerstone of preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), primarily by reducing low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Optimal statin therapy decisions rely on shared decision making and may be uncertain for a given patient. In areas of clinical uncertainty, personalized approaches based on real-world data may help inform treatment decisions. We sought to develop a personalized statin recommendation approach for primary ASCVD prevention based on historical real-world outcomes in similar patients. Our retrospective cohort included adults from a large Northern California electronic health record (EHR) aged 40-79 years with no prior cardiovascular disease or statin use. The cohort was split into training and test sets. Weighted-K-nearest-neighbor (wKNN) regression models were used to identify historical EHR patients similar to a candidate patient. We modeled four statin decisions for each patient: none, low-intensity, moderate-intensity, and high-intensity. For each candidate patient, the algorithm recommended the statin decision that was associated with the greatest percentage reduction in LDL-C after 1 year in similar patients. The overall cohort consisted of 50,576 patients (age 54.6 ± 9.8 years) with 55% female, 48% non-Hispanic White, 32% Asian, and 7.4% Hispanic patients. Among 8383 test-set patients, 52%, 44%, and 4% were recommended high-, moderate-, and low-intensity statins, respectively, for a maximum predicted average 1-yr LDL-C reduction of 16.9%, 20.4%, and 14.9%, in each group, respectively. Overall, using aggregate EHR data, a personalized statin recommendation approach identified the statin intensity associated with the greatest LDL-C reduction in historical patients similar to a candidate patient. Recommendations included low- or moderate-intensity statins for maximum LDL-C lowering in nearly half the test set, which is discordant with their expected guideline-based efficacy. A data-driven personalized statin recommendation approach may inform shared decision making in areas of uncertainty, and highlight unexpected efficacy-effectiveness gaps.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To describe the prevalence of statin utilisation by people aged over 50 years in Ireland and the factors associated with the likelihood of using a statin, focusing particularly on those using statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS:This is a cross-sectional analysis of cardiovascular risk and sociodemographic factors associated with statin utilisation from wave 1 of The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing. A hierarchy of indications for statin utilisation, consisting of eight mutually exclusive levels of CVD-related diagnoses, was created. Participants were assigned one level of indication. The prevalence of statin utilisation was calculated. The likelihood that an individual was using a statin was estimated using a multivariable logistic regression model, controlling for cardiovascular risk and sociodemographic factors. RESULTS:In this nationally representative sample (n=5618) of community-dwelling participants aged 50 years and over, 1715 (30.5%) were taking statins. Of these, 65.0% (57.3% of men and 72.7% of women) were doing so for the primary prevention of CVD. Thus, almost two-thirds of those taking statins did so for primary prevention and there was a notable difference between women and men in this regard. We also found that statin utilisation was highest among those with a prior history of CVD and was significantly associated with age (compared with the base category 50-64 years; 65-74 years OR 1.38 (95% CI 1.16 to 1.65); 75+ OR 1.33 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.69)), living with a spouse or partner (compared with the base category living alone; OR 1.35 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.65)), polypharmacy (OR 1.74 (95% CI 1.39 to 2.19)) and frequency of general practitioner visits (compared with the base category 0 visits per year; 1-2 visits OR 2.46 (95% CI 1.80 to 3.35); 3-4 visits OR 3.24 (95% CI 2.34 to 4.47); 5-6 visits OR 2.98 (95% CI 2.08 to 4.26); 7+ visits?OR 2.51 (95% CI 1.73 to 3.63)), even after controlling for clinical need. There was no association between using statins and gender, education, income, social class, health insurance status, location or Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) risk in the multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION:Statin utilisation among those with no history of CVD accounted for almost two-thirds of all statin use, in part reflecting the high proportion of the population with no history of CVD, although utilisation rates were highest among those with a history of CVD.

Project description:BackgroundAmong patients treated with statin therapy to guideline-recommended cholesterol levels, residual inflammatory risk assessed by high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) is at least as strong a predictor of future cardiovascular events as is residual risk assessed by low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC). Whether these relationships are present among statin-intolerant patients with higher LDLC levels is uncertain but has implications for the choice of preventive therapies, including bempedoic acid, an agent that reduces both LDLC and hsCRP.MethodsThe multinational CLEAR-Outcomes trial (Cholesterol Lowering via Bempedoic Acid, an ACL-Inhibiting Regimen Outcomes Trial) randomly allocated 13 970 statin-intolerant patients to 180 mg of oral bempedoic acid daily or matching placebo and followed them for a 4-component composite of incident myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or cardiovascular death, and for all-cause mortality. Quartiles of increasing baseline hsCRP and LDLC were assessed as predictors of future adverse events after adjustment for traditional risk factors and randomized treatment assignment.ResultsCompared with placebo, bempedoic acid reduced median hsCRP by 21.6% and mean LDLC levels by 21.1% at 6 months. Baseline hsCRP was significantly associated with the primary composite end point of major cardiovascular events (highest versus lowest hsCRP quartile; hazard ratio [HR], 1.43 [95% CI, 1.24-1.65]), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.53-2.61]), and all-cause mortality (HR, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.79-2.73]). By contrast, the relationship of baseline LDLC quartile (highest versus lowest) to future events was smaller in magnitude for the primary composite cardiovascular end point (HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.04-1.37]) and neutral for cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17]) and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.78-1.16]). Risks were high for those with elevated hsCRP irrespective of LDLC level. Bempedoic acid demonstrated similar efficacy in reducing cardiovascular events across all levels of hsCRP and LDLC.ConclusionsAmong contemporary statin-intolerant patients, inflammation assessed by hsCRP predicted risk for future cardiovascular events and death more strongly than hyperlipidemia assessed by LDLC. Compared with placebo, bempedoic acid had similar efficacy for reducing cardiovascular risk across hsCRP and LDLC strata.RegistrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02993406.

Project description:ImportanceFor primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), the 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines on statin use (hereafter European-ESC) recommend a new risk model (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 [European-SCORE2]) as well as new age-specific treatment thresholds (≥7.5% 10-year ASCVD risk if aged 40-49 years and ≥10% if aged 50-69 years).ObjectiveTo compare the clinical performance of the 2021 European-ESC, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (hereafter US-ACC/AHA), UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK-NICE), and 2019 ESC/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guidelines in apparently healthy individuals.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based contemporary cohort study included 66 909 individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study. Participants were aged 40 to 69 years and were free of ASCVD, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and statin use at baseline in 2003 to 2015. Mean follow-up time was 9.2 years. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to April 2022.ExposuresStatin treatment according to guideline criteria.Main outcomes and measuresCalibration of risk calculators, statin eligibility, sensitivity, and specificity for ASCVD events according to guideline criteria.ResultsDuring follow-up, a range of 2962 to 4277 nonfatal and fatal ASCVD events was observed, as defined by the 2021 European-SCORE2, US pooled cohort equations (PCE), and UK-QRISK3 models, and 180 fatal ASCVD events were noted as defined by the 2019 European-SCORE1 model. European-SCORE2 was slightly better calibrated with a predicted/observed ASCVD event ratio of 0.8 vs 1.3 for US-PCE, 1.3 for UK-QRISK3, and 5.8 for European-SCORE1. For primary prevention class I recommendations in individuals aged 40 to 69 years, 2862 of 66 909 (4%) qualified for statins according to the 2021 European-ESC guidelines compared with 23 029 (34%) with US-ACC/AHA, 17 659 (26%) with UK-NICE, and 13 496 (20%) with 2019 European-ESC/EAS guidelines, with associated sensitivities for detecting future European-SCORE2-defined ASCVD events of 12%, 60%, 51%, and 36%, respectively. The sensitivity of the European-ESC guidelines was improved considerably by lowering the treatment thresholds, resulting in smaller losses in specificity. To obtain similar clinical performance with the 2021 European-ESC guidelines as in the other guidelines, the threshold with European-SCORE2 should be reduced to 5% overall to match US-ACC/AHA, to 6% to match UK-NICE, and to 7% to match 2019 European-ESC/EAS guidelines.Conclusions and relevanceDespite an improved European-SCORE2 prediction model, the new treatment thresholds in the 2021 European-ESC guidelines dramatically reduce eligibility for primary prevention with statins in low-risk European countries. Using lower treatment thresholds can improve overall guideline performance.

Dataset Information

Predictors of cholesterol treatment discussions and statin prescribing for primary cardiovascular disease prevention in community health centers.

Publications

Predictors of cholesterol treatment discussions and statin prescribing for primary cardiovascular disease prevention in community health centers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets