Dataset Information

Population Impact & Efficiency of Benefit-Targeted Versus Risk-Targeted Statin Prescribing for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Benefit-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 results

We 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).

Conclusions

Benefit-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.

SUBMITTER: Pletcher MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5523747 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Population Impact & Efficiency of Benefit-Targeted Versus Risk-Targeted Statin Prescribing for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.

Pletcher Mark J MJ Pignone Michael M Jarmul Jamie A JA Moran Andrew E AE Vittinghoff Eric E Newman Thomas T

Journal of the American Heart Association 20170210 2

<h4>Background</h4>Benefit-targeted statin prescribing may be superior to risk-targeted statin prescribing (the current standard), but the impact and efficiency of this approach are unclear.<h4>Methods and results</h4>We 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 ...[more]

PMID: 28188251

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:ImportanceA 10-year benefit-based approach to statin therapy in primary prevention includes younger individuals with higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and prevents more cardiovascular events than a risk-based approach. However, a 10-year treatment duration likely underestimates the expected benefits of statins.ObjectiveTo model the impact of a 30-year benefit approach to select individuals for statin therapy.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) data set included samples of the US population from the 2009-2010, 2011-2012, and 2013-2014 data collection cycles. Individuals between 40 to 60 years old who did not have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or LDL-C levels greater than 190 mg/dL and who were not taking statins were included. Data analysis took place from November 2017 to August 2018.ExposuresWe calculated 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and 10-year and 30-year absolute risk reduction (10-year ARR and 30-year ARR) of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease for each individual.Main outcomes and measuresNumber of individuals meeting eligibility for statins based on 10-year (atherosclerotic) cardiovascular disease risk, 10-year ARR, or 30-year ARR.ResultsA total of 1688 individuals were included, representing 56.6 million US individuals. Statin eligibility based on 7.5% CVR10 was 9.5%; based on 2.3% 10-year ARR, 13.0%, and based on 15% 30-year ARR, 17.5%. The 10-year risk, 10-year benefit, and 30-year benefit approaches all led to similar acceptable mean absolute risk reductions at 30 years, with the benefit-based approaches better able to avoid treatment of individuals with low expected benefit. Individuals who met statin eligibility based solely on the 30-year ARR threshold of 15% or greater were younger (mean age, 50 [95% CI, 48-52] years) and more likely to be women (43% [95% CI, 26%-59%]) than those recommended with a 10-year ARR threshold of 2.3% or greater (mean age, 56 [95% CI, 54-57] years; 22% [95% CI, 10%-34%] women). This group also had lower 10-year risk (mean risk, 4.7% [95% CI, 4.4%-5.1%]) and higher LDL-C levels (mean level, 149 mg/dL [95% CI, 142-155 mg/dL]) than those recommended with a 10-year ARR threshold of 2.3% or greater (mean risk, 9.3% [95% CI, 8.3%-10.2%]; mean LDL-C levels, 110 [103-118] mg/dL). Preventable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events in 10 and 30 years were highest using the 30-year benefit approach (296 000 at 10 years and 2.03 million at 30 years) and lowest based on 10-year risk (204 000 at 10 years and 1.18 million at 30 years).Conclusions and relevanceA long-term benefit approach to statin eligibility identifies nearly 1 in 6 individuals as having a high degree of expected long-term benefit of statins, with a number needed to treat of less than 7. This approach identifies younger individuals with higher LDL-C levels who would not be currently recommended for treatment and may provide a more optimal approach for determining statin eligibility in primary prevention.

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.

Dataset Information

Population Impact & Efficiency of Benefit-Targeted Versus Risk-Targeted Statin Prescribing for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.

Background

Methods and results

Conclusions

Publications

Population Impact & Efficiency of Benefit-Targeted Versus Risk-Targeted Statin Prescribing for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets