S-EPMC6915275 - Effects of Race on Statin Prescribing for Primary Prevention With High Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk in a Large Healthcare System. - OmicsDI

Unknown

Dataset Information

Effects of Race on Statin Prescribing for Primary Prevention With High Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk in a Large Healthcare System.

ABSTRACT: Background Although guidelines recommend statins with a high level of evidence for 4 primary prevention benefit groups, prescribing disparities still exist. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of race on statin prescribing for primary prevention. Methods and Results A retrospective cohort analysis of patients within a large academic health system was performed to investigate statin prescribing among primary prevention groups. The statin benefits groups were patients diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, with an low-density lipoprotein ?190 mg/dL, or with an atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) 10-year risk ?7.5%. Statin prescribing was 20% in the ASCVD ?7.5% group, followed by 37.8% in the low-density lipoprotein ?190 mg/dL group and 40.5% in the diabetes mellitus group. Blacks were less likely to be prescribed a statin compared with whites in the diabetes mellitus (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.82; P=0.001) and ASCVD ?7.5% groups (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.54; P<0.0001). Blacks 60 to 69 years of age (odds ratio, 7.97; 95% CI, 3.14-20.2; P=0.003) and 70 to 79 years of age (odds ratio, 4.21; 95% CI, 1.81-9.79; P=0.008) were more likely to be prescribed a statin compared with blacks <60 years of age in the ASCVD ?7.5% group. Conclusions Blacks are less likely to be prescribed statins in diabetes mellitus and ASCVD ?7.5% groups compared with whites. Younger blacks with ASCVD risk ?7.5% are less likely to be prescribed statins compared with older blacks. Future research should focus on tailored interventions to address statin prescribing disparities in blacks.

SUBMITTER: Dorsch MP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6915275 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

altmetric image

Publications

Effects of Race on Statin Prescribing for Primary Prevention With High Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk in a Large Healthcare System.

Dorsch Michael P MP Lester Corey A CA Ding Yuting Y Joseph Megan M Brook Robert D RD

Journal of the American Heart Association 20191111 22

Background Although guidelines recommend statins with a high level of evidence for 4 primary prevention benefit groups, prescribing disparities still exist. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of race on statin prescribing for primary prevention. Methods and Results A retrospective cohort analysis of patients within a large academic health system was performed to investigate statin prescribing among primary prevention groups. The statin benefits groups were patients diagnosed ...[more]

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: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:ImportanceThe burden of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in the US is higher among Black and Hispanic vs White adults. Inclusion of race in guidance for statin indication may lead to decreased disparities in statin use.ObjectiveTo evaluate prevalence of primary prevention statin use by race and ethnicity according to 10-year ASCVD risk.Design, setting, and participantsThis serial, cross-sectional analysis performed in May 2022 used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a nationally representative sample of health status in the US, from 2013 to March 2020 (limited cycle due to the COVID-19 pandemic), to evaluate statin use for primary prevention of ASCVD and to estimate 10-year ASCVD risk. Participants aged 40 to 75 years without ASCVD, diabetes, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels 190 mg/dL or greater, and with data on medication use were included.ExposuresSelf-identified race and ethnicity (Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White) and 10-year ASCVD risk category (5%-<7.5%, 7.5%-<20%, ≥20%).Main outcomes and measuresPrevalence of statin use, defined as identification of statin use on pill bottle review.ResultsA total of 3417 participants representing 39.4 million US adults after applying sampling weights (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [8.0] years; 1289 women [weighted percentage, 37.8%] and 2128 men [weighted percentage, 62.2%]; 329 Asian [weighted percentage, 4.2%], 1032 Black [weighted percentage, 12.7%], 786 Hispanic [weighted percentage, 10.1%], and 1270 White [weighted percentage, 73.0%]) were included. Compared with White participants, statin use was lower in Black and Hispanic participants and comparable among Asian participants in the overall cohort (Asian, 25.5%; Black, 20.0%; Hispanic, 15.4%; White, 27.9%) and within ASCVD risk strata. Within each race and ethnicity group, a graded increase in statin use was observed across increasing ASCVD risk strata. Statin use was low in the highest risk stratum overall with significantly lower rates of use among Black (23.8%; prevalence ratio [PR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98 vs White) and Hispanic participants (23.9%; PR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-0.99 vs White). Among other factors, routine health care access and health insurance were significantly associated with higher statin use in Black, Hispanic, and White adults. Prevalence of statin use did not meaningfully change over time by race and ethnicity or by ASCVD risk stratum.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, statin use for primary prevention of ASCVD was low among all race and ethnicity groups regardless of ASCVD risk, with the lowest use occurring among Black and Hispanic adults. Improvements in access to care may promote equitable use of primary prevention statins in Black and Hispanic adults.

Project description:Importance:Five major guidelines on statin use for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) have been published since 2014: the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE; 2014), US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF; 2016), Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS; 2016), European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS; 2016), and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA; 2018). Objective:To compare the sensitivity, specificity, and estimated number needed to treat (NNT10) to prevent 1 ASCVD event in 10 years according to statin criteria from the 5 guidelines. Design, Setting, and Participants:Population-based contemporary cohort study. Analyses were performed in the Copenhagen General Population Study, with a mean follow-up time of 10.9 years. We included 45?750 individuals aged 40 to 75 years. The participants were enrolled between 2003 and 2009 and were all free of ASCVD at baseline. Data were analyzed between January 1, 2019, and August 4, 2019. Exposures:Statin treatment according to guideline criteria. We assumed a 25% relative reduction of ASCVD events per 38 mg/dL (to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0259) reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Main Outcomes and Measures:Sensitivity and specificity for ASCVD events and the NNT10 to prevent 1 ASCVD event according to guideline criteria. Results:Median age at baseline examination was 56 years, and 43% of participants were men (n?=?19?870 of 45?750). During follow-up, we observed 4156 ASCVD events. Overall, 44% of individuals in Copenhagen General Population Study were statin eligible with CCS (n?=?19?953 of 45?750), 42% with ACC/AHA (n?=?19?400 of 45?750), 40% with NICE (n?=?19?400 of 45?750), 31% with USPSTF (n?=?13?966 of 45?750), and 15% with ESC/EAS (n?=?6870 of 45?750). Sensitivity and specificity for ASCVD events were 68% (n?=?2815 of 4156) and 59% (n?=?24?456 of 41?594) for CCS, 70% (n?=?2889 of 4156) and 60% (n?=?25?083 of 41?594) for ACC/AHA, 68% (n?=?2815 of 4156) and 63% (n?=?26?213 of 41?594) for NICE, 57% (n?=?2377 of 4156) and 72% (n?=?30?005 of 41?594) for USPSTF, and 24% (n?=?1001 of 4156) and 86% (n?=?35?725 of 41?594) for ESC/EAS. The NNT10 to prevent 1 ASCVD using moderate-intensity and high-intensity statin therapy, respectively, was 32 and 21 for CCS criteria, 30 and 20 for ACC/AHA criteria, 30 and 20 for NICE criteria, 27 and 18 for USPSTF criteria, and 29 and 20 for ESC/EAS criteria. Conclusions and Relevance:With similar NNT10 to prevent 1 event, the CCS, ACC/AHA, and NICE guidelines correctly assign statin therapy to many more of the individuals who later develop ASCVD compared with the USPSTF and ESC/EAS guidelines. Our results therefore suggest that the CCS, ACC/AHA, or NICE guidelines may be preferred for primary prevention.

Project description:ImportanceThe Million Hearts initiative emphasizes ABCS (aspirin for high-risk patients, blood pressure [BP] control, cholesterol level management, and smoking cessation). Evidence of the effects of drugs used to achieve ABCS has not been synthesized comprehensively in the prevention of primary atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of aspirin, BP-lowering therapy, statins, and tobacco cessation drugs for fatal and nonfatal ASCVD outcomes in primary ASCVD prevention.Evidence reviewStructured search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PROSPERO International Prospective Systematic Review Trial Register to identify systematic reviews published from January 1, 2005, to June 17, 2015, that reported the effect of aspirin, BP-lowering therapy, statin, or tobacco cessation drugs on ASCVD events in individuals without prevalent ASCVD. Additional studies were identified by searching the reference lists of included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology assessment reports. Reviews were selected according to predefined criteria and appraised for methodologic quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool (range, 0-11). Studies were independently reviewed for key participant and intervention characteristics. Outcomes that were meta-analyzed in each included review were extracted. Qualitative synthesis was performed, and data were analyzed from July 2 to August 13, 2015.FindingsFrom a total of 1967 reports, 35 systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials were identified, including 15 reviews of aspirin, 4 reviews of BP-lowering therapy, 12 reviews of statins, and 4 reviews of tobacco cessation drugs. Methodologic quality varied, but 30 reviews had AMSTAR ratings of 5 or higher. Compared with placebo, aspirin (relative risk [RR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.96) and statins (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.81) reduced the risk for ASCVD. Compared with placebo, BP-lowering therapy reduced the risk for coronary heart disease (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.90) and stroke (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.73). Tobacco cessation drugs increased the odds of continued abstinence at 6 months (odds ratio range, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.60-2.06] to 2.88 [95% CI, 2.40-3.47]), but the direct effects on ASCVD were poorly reported. Aspirin increased the risk for major bleeding (RR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.30-1.82), and statins did not increase overall risk for adverse effects (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03). Adverse effects of BP-lowering therapy and tobacco cessation drugs were poorly reported.Conclusions and relevanceThis overview demonstrates high-quality evidence to support aspirin, BP-lowering therapy, and statins for primary ASCVD prevention and tobacco cessation drugs for smoking cessation. Treatment effects of each drug can be used to enrich discussions between health care professionals and patients in primary ASCVD prevention.