Dataset Information

Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Medication Prescription in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background Sex differences in the management of cardiovascular disease have been reported in secondary care. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis of systematically investigated sex differences in cardiovascular medication prescription among patients at high risk or with established cardiovascular disease in primary care. Methods and Results PubMed and Embase were searched between 2000 and 2019 for observational studies reporting on the sex-specific prevalence of aspirin, statins, and antihypertensive medication prescription, including beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and diuretics, in primary care. Random effects meta-analysis was used to obtain pooled women-to-men prevalence ratios for each cardiovascular medication prescription. Metaregression models assessed the impact of age and year on the findings. A total of 43 studies were included, involving 2 264 600 participants (28% women) worldwide. Participants' mean age ranged from 51 to 76 years. The pooled prevalence of cardiovascular medication prescription for women was 41% for aspirin, 60% for statins, and 68% for any antihypertensive medications. Corresponding rates for men were 56%, 63%, and 69% respectively. The pooled women-to-men prevalence ratios were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.72-0.92) for aspirin, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.95) for statins, and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.95-1.08) for any antihypertensive medications. Women were less likely to be prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.89) but more likely with diuretics (1.27; 95% CI, 1.17-1.37). Mean age, mean age difference between the sexes, and year of study had no significant impact on findings. Conclusions Sex differences in the prescription of cardiovascular medication exist among patients at high risk or with established cardiovascular disease in primary care, with a lower prevalence of aspirin, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors prescription in women and a lower prevalence of diuretics prescription in men.

SUBMITTER: Zhao M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7429003 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Medication Prescription in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Zhao Min M Woodward Mark M Vaartjes Ilonca I Millett Elizabeth R C ERC Klipstein-Grobusch Kerstin K Hyun Karice K Carcel Cheryl C Peters Sanne A E SAE

Journal of the American Heart Association 20200520 11

Background Sex differences in the management of cardiovascular disease have been reported in secondary care. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis of systematically investigated sex differences in cardiovascular medication prescription among patients at high risk or with established cardiovascular disease in primary care. Methods and Results PubMed and Embase were searched between 2000 and 2019 for observational studies reporting on the sex-specific prevalence of aspirin, statins, ...[more]

PMID: 32431190

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe conducted a systematic review of evidence from randomized controlled trials to answer the following research question: What are the relative effects of different classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease outcomes for healthy people at risk of cardiovascular disease?MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED (up to February 2011) and CENTRAL (up to May 2009), and reference lists in recent systematic reviews. Titles and abstracts were assessed for relevance and those potentially fulfilling our inclusion criteria were then assessed in full text. Two reviewers made independent assessments at each step. We selected the following main outcomes: total mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke. We also report on angina, heart failure and incidence of diabetes. We conducted a multiple treatments meta-analysis using random-effects models. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE-instrument.ResultsWe included 25 trials. Overall, the results were mixed, with few significant differences, and with no drug-class standing out as superior across multiple outcomes. The only significant finding for total mortality based on moderate to high quality evidence was that beta-blockers (atenolol) were inferior to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (relative risk (RR) 1.14; 95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.02 to 1.28). Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors came out inferior to calcium-channel blockers (CCB) regarding stroke-risk (RR 1.19; 1.03 to 1.38), but superior regarding risk of heart failure (RR 0.82; 0.69 to 0.94), both based on moderate quality evidence. Diuretics reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared to beta-blockers (RR 0.82; 0.68 to 0.98), and lowered the risk of heart failure compared to CCB (RR 0.73; 0.62 to 0.84), beta-blockers (RR 0.73; 0.54 to 0.96), and alpha-blockers (RR 0.51; 0.40 to 0.64). The risk of diabetes increased with diuretics compared to ACE-inhibitors (RR 1.43; 1.12 to 1.83) and CCB (RR 1.27; 1.05 to 1.57).ConclusionBased on the available evidence, there seems to be little or no difference between commonly used blood pressure lowering medications for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Beta-blockers (atenolol) and alpha-blockers may not be first-choice drugs as they were the only drug-classes that were not significantly superior to any other, for any outcomes. Review registration: CRD database ("PROSPERO") CRD42011001066.

Project description:BackgroundThe widespread use of antibiotics plays a major role in the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance. However, important knowledge gaps still exist regarding the extent of their use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly at the primary care level. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted in primary care in LMICs to estimate the prevalence of antibiotic prescriptions as well as the proportion of such prescriptions that are inappropriate.Methods and findingsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Global Health, and CENTRAL for articles published between 1 January 2010 and 4 April 2019 without language restrictions. We subsequently updated our search on PubMed only to capture publications up to 11 March 2020. Studies conducted in LMICs (defined as per the World Bank criteria) reporting data on medicine use in primary care were included. Three reviewers independently screened citations by title and abstract, whereas the full-text evaluation of all selected records was performed by 2 reviewers, who also conducted data extraction and quality assessment. A modified version of a tool developed by Hoy and colleagues was utilized to evaluate the risk of bias of each included study. Meta-analyses using random-effects models were performed to identify the proportion of patients receiving antibiotics. The WHO Access, Watch, and Reserve (AWaRe) framework was used to classify prescribed antibiotics. We identified 48 studies from 27 LMICs, mostly conducted in the public sector and in urban areas, and predominantly based on medical records abstraction and/or drug prescription audits. The pooled prevalence proportion of antibiotic prescribing was 52% (95% CI: 51%-53%), with a prediction interval of 44%-60%. Individual studies' estimates were consistent across settings. Only 9 studies assessed rationality, and the proportion of inappropriate prescription among patients with various conditions ranged from 8% to 100%. Among 16 studies in 15 countries that reported details on prescribed antibiotics, Access-group antibiotics accounted for more than 60% of the total in 12 countries. The interpretation of pooled estimates is limited by the considerable between-study heterogeneity. Also, most of the available studies suffer from methodological issues and report insufficient details to assess appropriateness of prescription.ConclusionsAntibiotics are highly prescribed in primary care across LMICs. Although a subset of studies reported a high proportion of inappropriate use, the true extent could not be assessed due to methodological limitations. Yet, our findings highlight the need for urgent action to improve prescription practices, starting from the integration of WHO treatment recommendations and the AWaRe classification into national guidelines.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42019123269.

Project description:Background Pharmacists-led medication reviews (MRs) are claimed to be effective for the control of cardiovascular diseases; however, the evidence in the literature is conflicting. The main objective of this meta-analysis was to analyze the impact of pharmacist-led MRs on cardiovascular disease risk factors overall and in different ambulatory settings while exploring the effects of different components of MRs. Methods and Results Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials database. Randomized and cluster randomized controlled trials of pharmacist-led MRs compared with usual care were included. Settings were community pharmacies and ambulatory clinics. The classification used for MRs was the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe as basic (type 1), intermediate (type 2), and advanced (type 3). Meta-analyses in therapeutic goals used odds ratios to standardize the effect of each study, and for continuous data (eg, systolic blood pressure) raw differences were calculated using baseline and final values, with 95% CIs. Prediction intervals were calculated to account for heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of results. Meta-analyses included 69 studies with a total of 11 644 patients. Sample demographic characteristics were similar between studies. MRs increased control of hypertension (odds ratio, 2.73; 95% prediction interval, 1.05-7.08), type 2 diabetes mellitus (odds ratio, 3.11; 95% prediction interval, 1.17-5.88), and high cholesterol (odds ratio, 1.91; 95% prediction interval, 1.05-3.46). In ambulatory clinics, MRs produced significant effects in control of diabetes mellitus and cholesterol. For community pharmacies, systolic blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein values decreased significantly. Advanced MRs had larger effects than intermediate MRs in diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia outcomes. Most intervention components had no significant effect on clinical outcomes and were often poorly described. CIs were significant in all analyses but prediction intervals were not in continuous clinical outcomes, with high heterogeneity present. Conclusions Intermediate and advanced MRs provided by pharmacists may improve control of blood pressure, cholesterol, and type 2 diabetes mellitus, as statistically significant prediction intervals were found. However, most continuous clinical outcomes failed to achieve statistical significance, with high heterogeneity present, although positive trends and effect sizes were found. Studies should use a standardized method for MRs to diminish sources of these heterogeneities.

Project description:Background and purposeWomen have worse outcomes than men after stroke. Differences in presentation may lead to misdiagnosis and, in part, explain these disparities. We investigated whether there are sex differences in clinical presentation of acute stroke or transient ischemic attack.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Inclusion criteria were (1) cohort, cross-sectional, case-control, or randomized controlled trial design; (2) admission for (suspicion of) ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or transient ischemic attack; and (3) comparisons possible between sexes in ≥1 nonfocal or focal acute stroke symptom(s). A random-effects model was used for our analyses. We performed sensitivity and subanalyses to help explain heterogeneity and used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess bias.ResultsWe included 60 studies (n=582 844; 50% women). In women, headache (pooled odds ratio [OR], 1.24 [95% CI, 1.11-1.39]; I2=75.2%; 30 studies) occurred more frequently than in men with any type of stroke, as well as changes in consciousness/mental status (OR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.19-1.61]; I2=95.0%; 17 studies) and coma/stupor (OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.25-1.55]; I2=27.0%; 13 studies). Aspecific or other neurological symptoms (nonrotatory dizziness and non-neurological symptoms) occurred less frequently in women (OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.94-0.97]; I2=0.1%; 5 studies). Overall, the presence of focal symptoms was not associated with sex (pooled OR, 1.03) although dysarthria (OR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.04-1.24]; I2=48.6%; 11 studies) and vertigo (OR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.13-1.34]; I2=44.0%; 8 studies) occurred more frequently, whereas symptoms of paresis/hemiparesis (OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.54-0.97]; I2=72.6%; 7 studies) and focal visual disturbances (OR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.70-0.99]; I2=62.8%; 16 studies) occurred less frequently in women compared with men with any type of stroke. Most studies contained possible sources of bias.ConclusionsThere may be substantive differences in nonfocal and focal stroke symptoms between men and women presenting with acute stroke or transient ischemic attack, but sufficiently high-quality studies are lacking. More studies are needed to address this because sex differences in presentation may lead to misdiagnosis and undertreatment.

Dataset Information

Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Medication Prescription in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Medication Prescription in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets