Dataset Information

Statin Use and Adverse Effects Among Adults >75 Years of Age: Insights From the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) Registry.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Current statin use and symptoms among older adults in routine community practice have not been well characterized since the release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline. METHODS AND RESULTS:We compared statin use and dosing between adults >75 and ?75 years old who were eligible for primary or secondary prevention statin use without considering guideline-recommended age criteria. The patients were treated at 138 US practices in the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry in 2015. Patient surveys also evaluated reported symptoms while taking statins. Multivariable logistic regression models examined the association between older age and statin use and dosing. Among 6717 people enrolled, 1704 (25%) were >75 years old. For primary prevention, use of any statin or high-dose statin did not vary by age group: any statin, 62.6% in those >75 years old versus 63.1% in those ?75 years old (P=0.83); high-dose statin, 10.2% versus 12.3% in the same groups (P=0.14). For secondary prevention, older patients were slightly less likely to receive any statin (80.1% versus 84.2% [P=0.003]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.01 [P=0.06]), but were much less likely to receive a high-intensity statin (23.5% versus 36.2% [P<0.0001]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.65 [P=0.0001]). Among current statin users, older patients were slightly less likely to report any symptoms (41.3% versus 46.6%; P=0.003) or myalgias (27.3% versus 33.3%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Overall use of statins was similar for primary prevention in those aged >75 years versus younger patients, yet older patients were less likely to receive high-intensity statins for secondary prevention. Statins appear to be similarly tolerated in older and younger adults.

SUBMITTER: Nanna MG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6015311 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Statin Use and Adverse Effects Among Adults >75 Years of Age: Insights From the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) Registry.

Nanna Michael G MG Navar Ann Marie AM Wang Tracy Y TY Mi Xiaojuan X Virani Salim S SS Louie Michael J MJ Lee L Veronica LV Goldberg Anne C AC Roger Veronique L VL Robinson Jennifer J Peterson Eric D ED

Journal of the American Heart Association 20180508 10

<h4>Background</h4>Current statin use and symptoms among older adults in routine community practice have not been well characterized since the release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.<h4>Methods and results</h4>We compared statin use and dosing between adults >75 and ≤75 years old who were eligible for primary or secondary prevention statin use without considering guideline-recommended age criteria. The patients were treated at 138 US practices in ...[more]

PMID: 29739801

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAfrican American individuals face higher atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk than white individuals; reasons for these differences, including potential differences in patient beliefs regarding preventive care, remain unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate differences in statin use between white and African American patients and identify the potential causes for any observed differences.Design, setting, and participantsUsing the 2015 Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) Registry data, we compared statin use and dosing between African American and white outpatient adults who were potentially eligible for primary or secondary prevention statins. A total of 138 US community health care practices contributed to the data. Data analysis was conducted from March 2017 to May 2018.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were use and dosing of statin therapy according to the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline by African American or white race. Secondary outcomes included lipid levels and patient-reported beliefs. Poisson regression was used to evaluate the association between race and statin undertreatment, a category combining people who were not taking a statin or those taking a dose intensity lower than recommended.ResultsA total of 5689 patients (806 [14.2%] African American) in the PALM registry were eligible for statin therapy. African American individuals were less likely than white individuals to be treated with a statin (570/807 [70.6%] vs 3654/4883 [74.8%]; P = .02). Among those treated, African American patients were less likely than white patients to receive a statin at guideline-recommended intensity (269 [33.3%] vs 2145 [43.9%], respectively; P < .001; relative risk, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.00-1.15]; P = .05, after adjustment for demographic and clinical factors). The median (interquartile range) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels of patients receiving treatment were higher among African American than white individuals (97.0 [76.0-121.0] mg/dL vs 85.0 [68.0-105.0] mg/dL; P < .001). African American individuals were less likely than white individuals to believe statins were safe (292 [36.2%] vs 2800 [57.3%]; P < .001) or effective (564 [70.0%] vs 3635 [74.4%]; P = .008) and were less likely to trust their clinician (663 [82.3%] vs 4579 [93.8%]; P < .001). Group differences in statin undertreatment were not significant after adjusting for demographic, clinical, and clinician factors, socioeconomic status, and patient beliefs (final adjusted relative risk, 1.03 [95% CI 0.96-1.11]; P = .35).Conclusions and relevanceAfrican American individuals were less likely to receive guideline-recommended statin therapy. Demographic, clinical, socioeconomic, belief-related, and clinician differences contributed to observed differences and represent potential targets for intervention.

Project description:Guideline implementation requires clinician knowledge but may be influenced by pre-existing beliefs and biases. We assessed the association of these clinician factors with lipid management following the release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines. In the PALM registry, 774 clinicians completed a survey to assess their knowledge of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, belief in statin benefit, and statin safety concerns. The association of these factors with statin use, statin dosing, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels were assessed in the 6,839 patients treated by these clinicians between May and November 2015. Overall, 63.9% of clinicians responded to at least 3 out of 4 hypothetical scenarios in concordance with guideline recommendations (good tested knowledge), 88.4% reported belief in statin benefit, and 15.4% raised concerns about statin safety. Belief in statin benefit was more prevalent among cardiologists, who represented 48.8% of the clinicians surveyed, and concerns regarding statin safety were higher among noncardiologists and clinicians in an academic setting. Guideline knowledge was not associated with a difference in statin use (74.1% vs 73.8%, p?=?0.84) and achievement of LDL-C level <100 mg/dl (54.7% vs 52.4%, p?=?0.07). However, patients treated by clinicians who reported belief in statin benefit were more likely to receive guideline-recommended statin intensity (41.9% vs 36.9%, p?=?0.03), whereas patients treated by clinicians expressing statin safety concerns were less likely receive statins of at least guideline-recommended intensity (36.8% vs 42.5%, p?=?0.001) and to achieve an LDL-C <100 mg/dl (44.1% vs 56.1%, p <0.001); the latter persisted after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.89). In conclusion, clinician beliefs regarding benefits and risks of statins were significantly associated with guideline adherence and patients' achieved LDL-C levels, whereas clinician knowledge of guideline recommendations was not.

Project description:BackgroundStatins have been recommended by several guidelines as the primary prevention medication for cardiovascular diseases. However, the benefits of statin therapy for cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD), particularly in adults ≥75 years of age, have not been fully evaluated.MethodsWe analyzed the data from a prospective population-based cohort study and a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to determine whether statin therapy might aid in slowing the progression of CSVD in adults ≥75 years of age. For the cohort study, 827 participants were considered eligible and were included in the baseline analysis. Subsequently, 781 participants were included in follow-up analysis. For the clinical trial, 227 participants were considered eligible and were used in the baseline and follow-up analyses.ResultsThe white matter hyperintensities (WMH) volume, the WMH-to-intracranial volume (ICV) ratio, the prevalence of a Fazekas scale score ≥ 2, lacunes, enlarged perivascular spaces (EPVS), and microbleeds were significantly lower in the statin group than the non-statin group at baseline in the cohort study (all P < 0.05). During the follow-up period, in both the cohort and clinical trial studies, the WMH volume and WMH-to-ICV ratio were significantly lower in the statin/rosuvastatin group than the non-statin/placebo group (all P < 0.001). Statin therapy was associated with lower risk of WMH, lacunes, and EPVS progression than the non-statin therapy group after adjustment for confounders (all P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of microbleeds between the statin and non-statin therapy groups (all, P > 0.05).ConclusionsOur findings indicated that statin therapy alleviated the progression of WMH, lacunes, and EPVS without elevating the risk of microbleeds. On the basis of the observed results, we concluded that statin therapy is an efficient and safe intervention for CSVD in adults ≥75 years of age.Trial registrationChictr.org.cn: ChiCTR-IOR-17013557 , date of trial retrospective registration November 27, 2017 and ChiCTR-EOC-017013598 , date of trial retrospective registration November 29, 2017.

Project description:ImportanceData are limited regarding statin therapy for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in adults 75 years and older.ObjectiveTo evaluate the role of statin use for mortality and primary prevention of ASCVD in veterans 75 years and older.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study that used Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data on adults 75 years and older, free of ASCVD, and with a clinical visit in 2002-2012. Follow-up continued through December 31, 2016. All data were linked to Medicare and Medicaid claims and pharmaceutical data. A new-user design was used, excluding those with any prior statin use. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to evaluate the association of statin use with outcomes. Analyses were conducted using propensity score overlap weighting to balance baseline characteristics.ExposuresAny new statin prescription.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes included a composite of ASCVD events (myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and revascularization with coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention).ResultsOf 326 981 eligible veterans (mean [SD] age, 81.1 [4.1] years; 97% men; 91% white), 57 178 (17.5%) newly initiated statins during the study period. During a mean follow-up of 6.8 (SD, 3.9) years, a total 206 902 deaths occurred including 53 296 cardiovascular deaths, with 78.7 and 98.2 total deaths/1000 person-years among statin users and nonusers, respectively (weighted incidence rate difference [IRD]/1000 person-years, -19.5 [95% CI, -20.4 to -18.5]). There were 22.6 and 25.7 cardiovascular deaths per 1000 person-years among statin users and nonusers, respectively (weighted IRD/1000 person-years, -3.1 [95 CI, -3.6 to -2.6]). For the composite ASCVD outcome there were 123 379 events, with 66.3 and 70.4 events/1000 person-years among statin users and nonusers, respectively (weighted IRD/1000 person-years, -4.1 [95% CI, -5.1 to -3.0]). After propensity score overlap weighting was applied, the hazard ratio was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.74-0.76) for all-cause mortality, 0.80 (95% CI, 0.78-0.81) for cardiovascular mortality, and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.94) for a composite of ASCVD events when comparing statin users with nonusers.Conclusions and relevanceAmong US veterans 75 years and older and free of ASCVD at baseline, new statin use was significantly associated with a lower risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Further research, including from randomized clinical trials, is needed to more definitively determine the role of statin therapy in older adults for primary prevention of ASCVD.

Project description:BackgroundThe cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond age 75 years remains unclear.ObjectiveTo estimate benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of extending mammography to age 80, 85, or 90 years according to comorbidity burden.DesignMarkov microsimulation model.Data sourcesSEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.Target populationU.S. women aged 65 to 90 years in groups defined by Charlson comorbidity score (CCS).Time horizonLifetime.PerspectiveNational health payer.InterventionScreening mammography to age 75, 80, 85, or 90 years.Outcome measuresBreast cancer death, survival, and costs.Results of base-case analysisExtending biennial mammography from age 75 to 80 years averted 1.7, 1.4, and 1.0 breast cancer deaths and increased days of life gained by 5.8, 4.2, and 2.7 days per 1000 women for comorbidity scores of 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Annual mammography beyond age 75 years was not cost-effective, but extending biennial mammography to age 80 years was ($54 000, $65 000, and $85 000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained for women with CCSs of 0, 1, and ≥2, respectively). Overdiagnosis cases were double the number of deaths averted from breast cancer.Results of sensitivity analysisCosts per QALY gained were sensitive to changes in invasive cancer incidence and shift of breast cancer stage with screening mammography.LimitationNo randomized controlled trials of screening mammography beyond age 75 years are available to provide model parameter inputs.ConclusionAlthough annual mammography is not cost-effective, biennial screening mammography to age 80 years is; however, the absolute number of deaths averted is small, especially for women with comorbidities. Women considering screening beyond age 75 years should weigh the potential harms of overdiagnosis versus the potential benefit of averting death from breast cancer.Primary funding sourceNational Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health.

Dataset Information

Statin Use and Adverse Effects Among Adults >75 Years of Age: Insights From the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) Registry.

Publications

Statin Use and Adverse Effects Among Adults >75 Years of Age: Insights From the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) Registry.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets