Beliefs, risk perceptions, and lipid management among patients with and without diabetes: Results from the PALM registry.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lowenstern A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7539544 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:The latest cholesterol guidelines have shifted focus from achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets toward statin use and intensity guided by atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. METHODS:Statin use and intensity were evaluated in 5,905 statin-eligible primary or secondary prevention patients from 138 PALM Registry practices. RESULTS:Overall, 74.7% of eligible adults were on statins; only 42.4% were on guideline-recommended intensity. Relative to primary prevention patients, ASCVD patients were more likely to be on a statin (83.6% vs 63.4%, P<.0001) and guideline-recommended intensity (47.3% vs 36.0%, P<.0001). Men were more likely than women to be prescribed recommended intensity for primary (odds ratio [OR] 1.87, 95% CI 1.49-2.34) and secondary (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.26-1.70) prevention. In primary prevention, increasing age, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and lower 10-year ASCVD risk were associated with increased odds of receiving recommended intensity. Among ASCVD patients, those with coronary artery disease were more likely to be on recommended intensity than cerebrovascular or peripheral vascular disease patients (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.41-2.09), as were those seen by cardiologists (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12-1.83). Median LDL-C levels were highest among patients not on statins (124.0 mg/dL) and slightly higher among those on lower-than-recommended intensity compared with recommended-therapy recipients (88.0 and 84.0 mg/dL, respectively; P?.0001). CONCLUSIONS:In routine contemporary practice, 1 in 4 guideline-eligible patients was not on a statin; less than half were on the recommended statin intensity. Untreated and undertreated patients had significantly higher LDL-C levels than those receiving guideline-directed statin treatment.
| S-EPMC5714300 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6656582 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNon-statin lipid lowering therapies (LLTs) provide additional treatment options for patients. Use patterns and patient perceptions of non-statin LLT remain incompletely described.HypothesisThe guideline-recommended statin intensity remains underutilized in patients treated with and without non-statin LLT.MethodsThe PALM Registry collected LLT information on patients with or at risk of ASCVD treated at 125 US clinics in 2015. We compared patient perceptions, lipid levels and statin use among patients treated with and without non-statin LLT.ResultsAmong 7720 patients, 1930 (25.0%) were treated with a non-statin LLT (1249 fish oil, 417 fibrates, 329 ezetimibe, 196 niacin). Concurrent statin treatment occurred in 73.7%, of which 45.4% were dosed under the guideline-recommended intensity. Compared with patients on statin alone, patients receiving both a statin and non-statin LLT (n = 1423) were more likely to be male, white race and to perceive themselves as higher risk of ASCVD compared with their peers (38.5% vs. 34.9%, p = .047). Only 27.4% of patients treated with non-statin LLT alone perceived themselves at higher risk. Most (75.7%) patients treated with a non-statin LLT alone reported never being treated with a statin, despite ASCVD in 30.8% of these patients. Among those previously treated with a statin, 59.3% reported being willing to try a statin again.ConclusionsNon-statin LLT is used in one in four patients with or at risk for ASCVD; its use is frequently in place of statin therapy or in the absence of guideline-recommended statin intensity. More work is needed to establish statins as first line therapy.
| S-EPMC8207979 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6526057 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess relationships between self-assessed control over life events, subjective beliefs about longevity, time and risk preference, and other factors on use of recommended care for diabetes mellitus (DM), self-assessed control of diabetes, general health, and laboratory measures of HbA1c levels.Data sourcesHealth and Retirement Study (HRS) and 2003 HRS Diabetes Study (HRS-DS).Study designWe used logit and ordered logit analyses to assess use of recommended care, and subjective and objective measures of health outcomes.Data collectionSecondary analysis of HRS and HRS-DS data.Principal findingsIndividuals with higher self-assessed control over life events and higher subjective probabilities of living 10 years engaged in more recommended DM care practices and had better self-assessed DM control and general health. However, these beliefs did not influence HbA1c levels. More highly educated and cognitively able persons were more likely to follow care recommendations. There were differences by race/ethnicity in health outcomes, but not in health investment among Hispanics.ConclusionsIndividuals' beliefs about control over life events and longevity influenced health investment and subjective health outcomes, although these beliefs did not translate into differences in HbA1c levels. Hispanics may realize lower returns on health investments, at least for diabetes care.
| S-EPMC2699922 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC6015311 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLimited reports addressing physicians' understanding of the various low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets/statin intensity required for treating the various dyslipidemia patient populations in Saudi Arabia are available. Therefore, the current study assessed the perceptions and beliefs of practicing clinicians in Saudi Arabia regarding the current practice for management of dyslipidemia and potential perceived barriers to adherence to lipid guidelines encountered in their regular clinical practice. Knowledge of different clinical practices and beliefs could have a positive impact on improving the quality of future care provided by physicians.MethodsA survey questionnaire was designed to assess physicians' familiarity, usage, and adherence to seven different international guidelines and used to evaluate the management of dyslipidemia, practice of patient treatment, and perceived obstacles to adhering to lipid guidelines related to specific patients, doctors, and practice issues.ResultsA total of 467 physicians were recruited for the study: (1) 57.2% were primary care physicians (PCPs) and (2) 42.8% were specialists. About 90.8% of them followed lipid guidelines of which the most common set were based on those by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. The most utilized risk assessment tool was the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk calculator. About 60% of the physicians set an LDL-C target for their patients based on a combination of patients' risk factors and lipid profiles. In all, 42.1% of the physicians chose not to change existing therapy among patients with dyslipidemia to attain a non-high-density lipoprotein goal with controlled LDL-C level. Atorvastatin accounted for the greatest percentage of primary and secondary prevention choices (71.9% and 69.6%, respectively). Rosuvastatin was mostly preferred by physicians for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia. About two-thirds of the physicians (77.9%) prescribed statins to diabetic patients aged 40-75 years. Statin intolerance was encountered by 62.9% of the physicians in ≤ 10% of patients by 62.9%. Therapeutic strategies included switching to an alternative statin (40.1%) followed by reducing the statin dose (35.3%). Ezetimibe was prescribed by most physicians (77.9%) as an add-on to statin if the LDL-C target was not achieved. Fibrate was most preferred by physicians (62.7%) for hypertriglyceremia treatment followed by statins (28.7% of the physicians). Sixty-six percent reported not using proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 serine protease inhibitors in their clinical practice due to unavailability at their institute (51.8%), high costs (26.3%), and/or lack of knowledge (20.6%). Perceived barriers to guideline adherence identified by physicians were lack of familiarity and knowledge of the guidelines, patient non-adherence, medication costs, and lack of timely follow-up appointments and educational tools. Multiple similarities and differences were observed after comparisons were made between specialists and PCPs in terms of guideline preference, clinical practice, and perceived barriers.ConclusionDifferent perceptions and attitudes among physicians in Saudi Arabia were found due to variable recommendations by international lipid guidelines. Perceived barriers that included the patient, physician, and practice were identified by physicians at multiple levels. Multiple challenges and different action gaps were observed when comparing specialists to PCPs. It is recommended that standardized practices be followed by clinicians in Saudi Arabia, and actions to address the outlined barriers are essential for optimizing health outcomes and ASCVD prevention.
| S-EPMC10495637 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that smokers aged 55-80 should be screened annually with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). This study identified demographics, smoking history, health risk perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes factors of older smokers (≥55 years) related to LDCT agreement. Using binary logistic regression, a predictive model of factors to explain LDCT agreement was produced. This is a cross-sectional, national, online survey of 338 older smokers (≥55 years) with a ≥30 pack-year smoking history. Over 82% of the sample believed that a person who continues to smoke after the age of 40 has at least a 25% chance of developing lung cancer and 77.3% would "agree to a LDCT today". Using chi-square analyses, six variables that were significant at the 0.10 level were selected for inclusion in model development. Four of the independent variables made a unique statistically significant contribution to the model: perceives accuracy of the LDCT as an important factor in the decision to have a LDCT scan; believes that early detection of LC will result in a good prognosis; believes that they are at high risk for lung cancer; and is not afraid of CT scans. Of note, only 10.9% believed that a negative CT scan result would mean that they could continue to smoke. Older smokers are aware of the risks of smoking, are interested in smoking cessation, and most are interested in and positive about LDCT. Cognitive aspects of participation in screening are key to increasing the uptake of lung cancer screening among high-risk smokers.
| S-EPMC4831294 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo compare cardiovascular risk factor control in adults with diabetes participating in a national diabetes registry to those in the general population and to ascertain regional differences in diabetes care.MethodsAdults with diagnosed diabetes in the Diabetes Collaborative Registry (DCR) were compared with those in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2015 to 2016; standardized mean difference (SMD) > 0.2 defined significance. Regional differences were assessed in the DCR cohort; p < .05 defined significance.ResultsThe DCR cohort was older (61 vs. 57 years, SMD = 0.38), more insured (99.7% vs. 91.0%, SMD = 0.42), and less ethnically diverse (83% non-Hispanic white vs. 76%, SMD = 0.30) compared with NHANES. The proportion of overweight/obesity, A1c < 7% (<53 mmol/mol), and BP < 140/90 were similar, but DCR participants had higher proportion with LDL < 2.59 mmol/L (61% vs. 41%, SMD = 0.39) and fewer tobacco users (17% vs. 32%, SMD = 0.35). Regionally, obesity, lack of glycaemic control, and tobacco use were highest in the Midwest, BP control was the lowest in the South, and LDL control was lowest in the Northeast.ConclusionsSignificant regional differences in diabetes care delivery and outcomes were identified using a national diabetes registry. Serial analyses of the DCR may supplement national evaluations to deepen our understanding of diabetes care in the US.
| S-EPMC7837386 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 has represented one of the several undesirable effects of the current pandemic. In understanding why people can be more or less at risk to believe in misinformation, emotional distress and education could play a crucial role. The present study aims to analyze the relationship among depressive symptoms, education, and beliefs in misinformation about COVID-19 during the early phase of the pandemic. We do this through a cross-sectional study carried out on a random and representative sample of the Italian population that allows us to go and verify the co-evolution of many factors: i.e., beliefs in misinformation, symptoms of depression, perceptions about COVID-19, ways in which citizens got informed about the pandemic, and sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, education). The results show that the relationship between depression and beliefs in misinformation exists and is more complex than hypothesized because it is mediated by individual perceptions. In particular, the most at-risk people to believe in misinformation show higher bias perceptions, higher depression, and lower education. Practical implications are discussed suggesting a supportive intervention at both individual and social levels.
| S-EPMC9524309 | biostudies-literature