Dataset Information

Variation in minimum desired cardiovascular disease-free longevity benefit from statin and antihypertensive medications: a cross-sectional study of patient and primary care physician perspectives.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Expressing therapy benefit from a lifetime perspective, instead of only a 10-year perspective, is both more intuitive and of growing importance in doctor-patient communication. In cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, lifetime estimates are increasingly accessible via online decision tools. However, it is unclear what gain in life expectancy is considered meaningful by those who would use the estimates in clinical practice. We therefore quantified lifetime and 10-year benefit thresholds at which physicians and patients perceive statin and antihypertensive therapy as meaningful, and compared the thresholds with clinically attainable benefit. DESIGN:Cross-sectional study. SETTINGS:(1) continuing medical education conference in December 2016 for primary care physicians;(2) information session in April 2017 for patients. PARTICIPANTS:400 primary care physicians and 523 patients in the Netherlands. OUTCOME:Months gain of CVD-free life expectancy at which lifelong statin therapy is perceived as meaningful, and months gain at which 10?years of statin and antihypertensive therapy is perceived as meaningful. Physicians were framed as users for lifelong and prescribers for 10-year therapy. RESULTS:Meaningful benefit was reported as median (IQR). Meaningful lifetime statin benefit was 24 months (IQR 23-36) in physicians (as users) and 42 months (IQR 12-42) in patients willing to consider therapy. Meaningful 10-year statin benefit was 12 months (IQR 10-12) for prescribing (physicians) and 14 months (IQR 10-14) for using (patients). Meaningful 10-year antihypertensive benefit was 12 months (IQR 8-12) for prescribing (physicians) and 14 months (IQR 10-14) for using (patients). Women desired greater benefit than men. Age, CVD status and co-medication had minimal effects on outcomes. CONCLUSION:Both physicians and patients report a large variation in meaningful longevity benefit. Desired benefit differs between physicians and patients and exceeds what is clinically attainable. Clinicians should recognise these discrepancies when prescribing therapy and implement individualised medicine and shared decision-making. Decision tools could provide information on realistic therapy benefit.

SUBMITTER: Jaspers NEM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5988148 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Variation in minimum desired cardiovascular disease-free longevity benefit from statin and antihypertensive medications: a cross-sectional study of patient and primary care physician perspectives.

Jaspers Nicole E M NEM Visseren Frank L J FLJ Numans Mattijs E ME Smulders Yvo M YM van Loenen Martinet Fere A FA van der Graaf Yolanda Y Dorresteijn Jannick A N JAN

BMJ open 20180526 5

<h4>Objective</h4>Expressing therapy benefit from a lifetime perspective, instead of only a 10-year perspective, is both more intuitive and of growing importance in doctor-patient communication. In cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, lifetime estimates are increasingly accessible via online decision tools. However, it is unclear what gain in life expectancy is considered meaningful by those who would use the estimates in clinical practice. We therefore quantified lifetime and 10-year benefi ...[more]

PMID: 29804065

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/objectivesGuideline-based management of cardiovascular disease often involves prescribing multiple medications, which contributes to polypharmacy and risk for adverse drug events in older adults. Deprescribing is a potential strategy to mitigate these risks. We sought to characterize and compare clinician perspectives regarding deprescribing cardiovascular medications across three specialties.DesignNational cross-sectional survey.SettingAmbulatory.ParticipantsRandom sample of geriatricians, general internists, and cardiologists from the American College of Physicians.MeasurementsElectronic survey assessing clinical practice of deprescribing cardiovascular medications, reasons and barriers to deprescribing, and choice of medications to deprescribe in hypothetical clinical cases.ResultsIn each specialty, 750 physicians were surveyed, with a response rate of 26% for geriatricians, 26% for general internists, and 12% for cardiologists. Over 80% of respondents within each specialty reported that they had recently considered deprescribing a cardiovascular medication. Adverse drug reactions were the most common reason for deprescribing for all specialties. Geriatricians also commonly reported deprescribing in the setting of limited life expectancy. Barriers to deprescribing were shared across specialties and included concerns about interfering with other physicians' treatment plans and patient reluctance. In hypothetical cases, over 90% of physicians in each specialty chose to deprescribe when patients experienced adverse drug reactions. Geriatricians were most likely and cardiologists were least likely to consider deprescribing cardiovascular medications in cases of limited life expectancy (all P < .001), such as recurrent metastatic cancer (84% of geriatricians, 68% of general internists, and 45% of cardiologists), Alzheimer dementia (92% of geriatricians, 81% of general internists, and 59% of cardiologists), or significant functional impairment (83% of geriatricians, 68% of general internists, and 45% of cardiologists).ConclusionsWhile barriers to deprescribing cardiovascular medications are shared across specialties, reasons for deprescribing, especially in the setting of limited life expectancy, varied. Implementing deprescribing will require improved processes for both physician-physician and physician-patient communication. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:78-86, 2019.

Project description:BackgroundPoor medication adherence is an extraordinarily common problem worldwide that contributes to inadequate control of many chronic diseases, including Hypertension (HT). Globally, less than 14% of the estimated 1.4 billion patients with HT achieve optimal control. A myriad of barriers, across patient, healthcare provider, and system levels, contributes to poor medication adherence. Few studies have explored the reasons for poor medication adherence in Tanzania and other African countries.MethodsA qualitative study applying grounded theory principles was conducted in the catchment area of two semi-urban clinics in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, to determine the perceived barriers to HT medication adherence. Ten key informant interviews were conducted with healthcare providers who manage HT patients. Patients diagnosed with HT (SBP ≥ 140 and DBP ≥ 90), were randomly selected from patient registers, and nine focus group discussions were conducted with a total 34 patients. Inductive codes were developed separately for the two groups, prior to analyzing key thematic ideas with smaller sub-categories.ResultsAffordability of antihypertensive medication and access to care emerged as the most important barriers. Fee subsidies for treatment and medication, along with health insurance, were mentioned as potential solutions to enhance access and adherence. Patient education and quality of physician counseling were mentioned by both providers and patients as major barriers to medication adherence, as most patients were unaware of their HT and often took medications only when symptomatic. Use of local herbal medicines was mentioned as an alternative to medications, as they were inexpensive, available, and culturally acceptable. Patient recommendations for improving adherence included community-based distribution of refills, SMS text reminders, and family support. Reliance on religious leaders over healthcare providers emerged as a potential means to promote adherence in some discussions.ConclusionsEffective management of hypertensive patients for medication adherence will require several context-specific measures. These include policy measures addressing financial access, with medication subsidies for the poor and accessible distribution systems for medication refill; physician measures to improve health provider counseling for patient centric care; and patient-level strategies with reminders for medication adherence in low resource settings.

Project description:BackgroundTo further inform benefits and risks of medications on physical function in aging populations, we have evaluated the associations of antihypertensive (antiHTN) class and number used with skeletal muscle function, mobility, sedentary time, and symptoms in older persons.MethodsUsing baseline data from the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence in Elder (LIFE) study (N = 1567, mean age 78.9 years) and multivariable models, we evaluated cross-sectional associations of antiHTN class and number used with physical measures and symptom questionnaires. AntiHTN class included diuretics, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), calcium channel blockers (CCB), and beta blockers (BB). Physical measures included respiratory muscle weakness (maximal inspiratory pressure), grip weakness (dynamometer), impaired lower extremity proximal muscle strength (chair stands), impaired balance (three-stage test), slow gait (400 m walk), mobility impairment (Short Physical Performance Battery), and high sedentary time (accelerometry). Symptoms included dyspnea and fatigue. Covariates included clinical characteristics and non-antiHTNs.ResultsUse of any antiHTN was highly prevalent (n = 1248 [79.6%]). In the antiHTN subgroup, each antiHTN class was well represented (ranging 36.6%-62.7%) and included use of three or more antiHTNs (32.0%). In adjusted models, the only statistically significant associations were use of BB and three or more antiHTNs with high sedentary time: odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) 1.44 (1.12, 1.85) and 1.52 (1.04, 2.23), respectively.ConclusionUse of BB and three or more antiHTNs yielded 44% and 52% increased odds of accelerometry-defined high sedentary time, respectively. Notably, high sedentary time is a risk factor for adverse health outcomes. Thus, future work should evaluate whether high sedentary time mitigates benefits or increases risks, regarding antiHTN use in aging populations.

Project description:Hypertension is a major risk factor for a spectrum of cardiovascular diseases (CVD), including myocardial infarction, sudden death, and stroke. In the US, over 65 million people have high blood pressure and a large proportion of these individuals are prescribed antihypertensive medications. Although large long-term clinical trials conducted in the last several decades have identified a number of effective antihypertensive treatments that reduce the risk of future clinical complications, responses to therapy and protection from cardiovascular events vary among individuals.Using a genome-wide association study among 21,267 participants with pharmaceutically treated hypertension, we explored the hypothesis that genetic variants might influence or modify the effectiveness of common antihypertensive therapies on the risk of major cardiovascular outcomes. The classes of drug treatments included angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, and diuretics. In the setting of the Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology (CHARGE) consortium, each study performed array-based genome-wide genotyping, imputed to HapMap Phase II reference panels, and used additive genetic models in proportional hazards or logistic regression models to evaluate drug-gene interactions for each of four therapeutic drug classes. We used meta-analysis to combine study-specific interaction estimates for approximately 2 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in a discovery analysis among 15,375 European Ancestry participants (3,527 CVD cases) with targeted follow-up in a case-only study of 1,751 European Ancestry GenHAT participants as well as among 4,141 African-Americans (1,267 CVD cases).Although drug-SNP interactions were biologically plausible, exposures and outcomes were well measured, and power was sufficient to detect modest interactions, we did not identify any statistically significant interactions from the four antihypertensive therapy meta-analyses (Pinteraction > 5.0×10-8). Similarly, findings were null for meta-analyses restricted to 66 SNPs with significant main effects on coronary artery disease or blood pressure from large published genome-wide association studies (Pinteraction ? 0.01). Our results suggest that there are no major pharmacogenetic influences of common SNPs on the relationship between blood pressure medications and the risk of incident CVD.

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.

Dataset Information

Variation in minimum desired cardiovascular disease-free longevity benefit from statin and antihypertensive medications: a cross-sectional study of patient and primary care physician perspectives.

Publications

Variation in minimum desired cardiovascular disease-free longevity benefit from statin and antihypertensive medications: a cross-sectional study of patient and primary care physician perspectives.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets