Dataset Information

Effect of Statin Treatment vs Usual Care on Primary Cardiovascular Prevention Among Older Adults: The ALLHAT-LLT Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

While statin therapy for primary cardiovascular prevention has been associated with reductions in cardiovascular morbidity, the effect on all-cause mortality has been variable. There is little evidence to guide the use of statins for primary prevention in adults 75 years and older.

Objectives

To examine statin treatment among adults aged 65 to 74 years and 75 years and older when used for primary prevention in the Lipid-Lowering Trial (LLT) component of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT-LLT).

Design, setting, and participants

Post hoc secondary data analyses were conducted of participants 65 years and older without evidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; 2867 ambulatory adults with hypertension and without baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were included. The ALLHAT-LLT was conducted from February 1994 to March 2002 at 513 clinical sites.

Interventions

Pravastatin sodium (40 mg/d) vs usual care (UC).

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome in the ALLHAT-LLT was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cause-specific mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction or fatal coronary heart disease combined (coronary heart disease events).

Results

There were 1467 participants (mean [SD] age, 71.3 [5.2] years) in the pravastatin group (48.0% [n = 704] female) and 1400 participants (mean [SD] age, 71.2 [5.2] years) in the UC group (50.8% [n = 711] female). The baseline mean (SD) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were 147.7 (19.8) mg/dL in the pravastatin group and 147.6 (19.4) mg/dL in the UC group; by year 6, the mean (SD) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were 109.1 (35.4) mg/dL in the pravastatin group and 128.8 (27.5) mg/dL in the UC group. At year 6, of the participants assigned to pravastatin, 42 of 253 (16.6%) were not taking any statin; 71.0% in the UC group were not taking any statin. The hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in the pravastatin group vs the UC group were 1.18 (95% CI, 0.97-1.42; P = .09) for all adults 65 years and older, 1.08 (95% CI, 0.85-1.37; P = .55) for adults aged 65 to 74 years, and 1.34 (95% CI, 0.98-1.84; P = .07) for adults 75 years and older. Coronary heart disease event rates were not significantly different among the groups. In multivariable regression, the results remained nonsignificant, and there was no significant interaction between treatment group and age.

Conclusions and relevance

No benefit was found when pravastatin was given for primary prevention to older adults with moderate hyperlipidemia and hypertension, and a nonsignificant direction toward increased all-cause mortality with pravastatin was observed among adults 75 years and older.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000542.

SUBMITTER: Han BH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5543335 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:IntroductionAlthough statins are commonly used for prevention of cardiovascular disease, there is limited evidence about statin-related adverse effects in older people. Statin-related adverse events (AEs), especially the statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS), are the most common reasons for their discontinuation. Therefore, it is important to determine the risk of SAMS in the older population. We will undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis primarily focusing on the risk of SAMS and secondarily targeting myopathy, rhabdomyolysis, AEs and serious AEs, dropouts due to SAMS in run-in period, related permanent discontinuation rate of statins and creatine kinase level, among older people who received statins for primary prevention.Methods and analysisThis study has been developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols statement. We will include randomised controlled trials in which statin was compared with placebo with at least 1 year follow-up among older adults aged ≥65. This review is an update of a Cochrane systematic review that included the articles published before 2012. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline OvidSP and Embase electronic database searches will be performed to identify relevant articles, limiting the publication date from 1 January 2012 to 13 February 2017. There will be no language limitation. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts and full text in duplicate. Risk of bias and evidence quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, respectively. A meta-analysis using pooled data will be undertaken, if appropriate. We will also perform metaregression and subgroup analyses to identify sources of heterogeneity.Ethics and disseminationThis study is exempt from ethics approval due to the anonymous and aggregated data used. The outcomes will be disseminated by conference presentations and published in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberCRD42017058436.

Project description:ImportanceNonadherence to statin guidelines is common. The solute carrier organic anion transporter family member 1B1 (SLCO1B1) genotype is associated with simvastatin myopathy risk and is proposed for clinical implementation. The unintended harms of using pharmacogenetic information to guide pharmacotherapy remain a concern for some stakeholders.ObjectiveTo determine the impact of delivering SLCO1B1 pharmacogenetic results to physicians on the effectiveness of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention (measured by low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] levels) and concordance with prescribing guidelines for statin safety and effectiveness.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial was performed from December 2015 to July 2019 at 8 primary care practices in the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System. Participants included statin-naive patients with elevated ASCVD risk. Data analysis was performed from October 2019 to September 2020.InterventionsSLCO1B1 genotyping and results reporting to primary care physicians at baseline (intervention group) vs after 1 year (control group).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the 1-year change in LDL-C level. The secondary outcomes were 1-year concordance with American College of Cardiology-American Heart Association and Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines for statin therapy and statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS).ResultsAmong 408 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.1 [7.8] years; 25 women [6.1%]), 193 were randomized to the intervention group and 215 were randomized to the control group. Overall, 120 participants (29%) had a SLCO1B1 genotype indicating increased simvastatin myopathy risk. Physicians offered statin therapy to 65 participants (33.7%) in the intervention group and 69 participants (32.1%) in the control group. Compared with patients whose physicians did not know their SLCO1B1 results at baseline, patients whose physicians received the results had noninferior reductions in LDL-C at 12 months (mean [SE] change in LDL-C, -1.1 [1.2] mg/dL in the intervention group and -2.2 [1.3] mg/dL in the control group; difference, -1.1 mg/dL; 90% CI, -4.1 to 1.8 mg/dL; P < .001 for noninferiority margin of 10 mg/dL). The proportion of patients with American College of Cardiology-American Heart Association guideline-concordant statin prescriptions in the intervention group was noninferior to that in the control group (12 patients [6.2%] vs 14 patients [6.5%]; difference, -0.003; 90% CI, -0.038 to 0.032; P < .001 for noninferiority margin of 15%). All patients in both groups were concordant with CPIC guidelines for safe statin prescribing. Physicians documented 2 and 3 cases of SAMS in the intervention and control groups, respectively, none of which was associated with a CPIC guideline-discordant prescription. Among patients with a decreased or poor SLCO1B1 transporter function genotype, simvastatin was prescribed to 1 patient in the control group but none in the intervention group.Conclusions and relevanceClinical testing and reporting of SLCO1B1 results for statin myopathy risk did not result in poorer ASCVD prevention in a routine primary care setting and may have been associated with physicians avoiding simvastatin prescriptions for patients at genetic risk for SAMS. Such an absence of harm should reassure stakeholders contemplating the clinical use of available pharmacogenetic results.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02871934.