Dataset Information

Iranian general populations' and health care providers' preferences for benefits and harms of statin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The use of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases is associated with different benefit and harm outcomes. The aime of this study is how important these outcomes are for people and what people's preferences are. METHODS:We conducted a preference-eliciting survey incorporating a best-worst scaling (BWS) instrument in Iran from June to November 2019. The relative importance of 13 statins-related outcomes was assessed on a sample of 1085 participants, including 913 general population (486 women) and 172 healthcare providers from the population covered by urban and rural primary health care centers. The participants made trade-off decisions and selected the most and least worrisome outcomes concurrently from 13 choice sets; each contains four outcomes generated using the balanced incomplete block design. RESULTS:According to the mean (SD) BWS scores, which can be (+?4) in maximum and (-?4) in minimum, in the general population, the most worrisome outcomes were severe stroke (3.37 (0.8)), severe myocardial infarction (2.71(0.7)), and cancer (2.69 (1.33)). While myopathy (-?3. 03 (1.03)), nausea/headache (-?2.69 (0.94)), and treatment discontinuation due to side effects (-?2.24 (1.14)) were the least worrisome outcomes. Preferences were similar between rural and urban areas and among health care providers and the general population with overlapping uncertainty intervals. CONCLUSION:The rank of health outcomes may be similar in various socio-cultural contexts. The preferences for benefits and harms of statin therapy are essential to assess benefit-harm balance when recommending statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases.

SUBMITTER: Saadati H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7640674 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Iranian general populations' and health care providers' preferences for benefits and harms of statin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Saadati Hassan H Baradaran Hamid Reza HR Danaei Goodarz G Ostovar Afshin A Hadaegh Farzad F Janani Leila L Steyerberg Ewout W EW Khalili Davood D

BMC medical informatics and decision making 20201104 1

<h4>Background</h4>The use of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases is associated with different benefit and harm outcomes. The aime of this study is how important these outcomes are for people and what people's preferences are.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a preference-eliciting survey incorporating a best-worst scaling (BWS) instrument in Iran from June to November 2019. The relative importance of 13 statins-related outcomes was assessed on a sample of 1085 participants, inc ...[more]

PMID: 33148227

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAn estimated 20-30% of community-dwelling Canadian adults aged 65 years or older experience one or more falls each year. Fall-related injuries are a leading cause of hospitalization and can lead to functional independence. Many fall prevention interventions, often based on modifiable risk factors, have been studied. Apart from the magnitude of the benefits and harms from different interventions, the preferences of older adults for different interventions as well as the relative importance they place on the different potential outcomes may influence recommendations by guideline panels. These reviews on benefits and harms of interventions, and on patient values and preferences, will inform the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to develop recommendations on fall prevention for primary care providers.MethodsTo review the benefits and harms of fall prevention interventions, we will update a previous systematic review of randomized controlled trials with adaptations to modify the classification of interventions and narrow the scope to community-dwelling older adults and primary-care relevant interventions. Four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ageline), reference lists, trial registries, and relevant websites will be searched, using limits for randomized trials and date (2016 onwards). We will classify interventions according to the Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFANE) Group's taxonomy. Outcomes include fallers, falls, injurious falls, fractures, hip fractures, institutionalization, health-related quality of life, functional status, and intervention-related adverse effects. For studies not included in the previous review, screening, study selection, data extraction on outcomes, and risk of bias assessments will be independently undertaken by two reviewers with consensus used for final decisions. Where quantitative analysis is suitable, network or pairwise meta-analysis will be conducted using a frequentist approach in Stata. Assessment of the transitivity and coherence of the network meta-analyses will be undertaken. For the reviews on patient preferences and outcome valuation (relative importance of outcomes), we will perform de novo reviews with searches in three databases (MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) and reference lists for cross-sectional, longitudinal quantitative, or qualitative studies published from 2000. Selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments suitable for each study design will be performed in duplicate. The analysis will be guided by a narrative synthesis approach, which may include meta-analysis for health-state utilities. We will use the CINeMa approach to a rate the certainty of the evidence for outcomes on intervention effects analyzed using network meta-analysis and the GRADE approach for all other outcomes.DiscussionWe will describe the flow of literature and characteristics of all studies and present results of all analyses and summary of finding tables. We will compare our findings to others and discuss the limitations of the reviews and the available literature.Systematic review registrationThis protocol has not been registered.

Project description:BackgroundPatient preferences for treatment outcomes are important to guide decision-making in clinical practice, but little is known about the preferences of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).ObjectiveTo evaluate patient preferences regarding the attributed benefits and harms of systemic treatments for mHSPC and preference heterogeneity between individuals and specific subgroups.Design setting and participantsWe conducted an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) preference survey among 77 patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) and 311 men from the general population in Switzerland between November 2021 and August 2022.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisWe evaluated preferences and preference heterogeneity related to survival benefits and treatment-related adverse effects using mixed multinomial logit models and estimated the maximum survival time participants were willing to trade to avert specific adverse effects. We further assessed characteristics associated with different preference patterns via subgroup and latent class analyses.Results and limitationsPatients with mPC showed an overall stronger preference for survival benefits in comparison to men from the general population (p = 0.004), with substantial preference heterogeneity between individuals within the two samples (both p < 0.001). There was no evidence of differences in preferences for men aged 45-65 yr versus ≥65 yr, patients with mPC in different disease stages or with different adverse effect experiences, or general population participants with and without experiences with cancer. Latent class analyses suggested the presence of two groups strongly preferring either survival or the absence of adverse effects, with no specific characteristic clearly associated with belonging to either group. Potential biases due to participant selection, cognitive burden, and hypothetical choice scenarios may limit the study results.ConclusionsGiven the relevant heterogeneity in participant preferences regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for mHSPC, patient preferences should be explicitly discussed during decision-making in clinical practice and reflected in clinical practice guidelines and regulatory assessment regarding treatment for mHSPC.Patient summaryWe examined the preferences (values and perceptions) of patients and men from the general population regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. There were large differences between men in how they balanced the expected survival benefits and potential adverse effects. While some men strongly valued survival, others more strongly valued the absence of adverse effects. Therefore, it is important to discuss patient preferences in clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundIn view of evidence that statin therapy increases risk of diabetes, the balance of benefit and risk of these drugs in primary prevention has become controversial. We undertook an analysis of participants from the JUPITER trial to address the balance of vascular benefits and diabetes hazard of statin use.MethodsIn the randomised, double-blind JUPITER trial, 17,603 men and women without previous cardiovascular disease or diabetes were randomly assigned to rosuvastatin 20 mg or placebo and followed up for up to 5 years for the primary endpoint (myocardial infarction, stroke, admission to hospital for unstable angina, arterial revascularisation, or cardiovascular death) and the protocol-prespecified secondary endpoints of venous thromboembolism, all-cause mortality, and incident physician-reported diabetes. In this analysis, participants were stratified on the basis of having none or at least one of four major risk factors for developing diabetes: metabolic syndrome, impaired fasting glucose, body-mass index 30 kg/m(2) or higher, or glycated haemoglobin A(1c) greater than 6%. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00239681.FindingsTrial participants with one or more major diabetes risk factor (n=11,508) were at higher risk of developing diabetes than were those without a major risk factor (n=6095). In individuals with one or more risk factors, statin allocation was associated with a 39% reduction in the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 0·61, 95% CI 0·47-0·79, p=0·0001), a 36% reduction in venous thromboembolism (0·64, 0·39-1·06, p=0·08), a 17% reduction in total mortality (0·83, 0·64-1·07, p=0·15), and a 28% increase in diabetes (1·28, 1·07-1·54, p=0·01). Thus, for those with diabetes risk factors, a total of 134 vascular events or deaths were avoided for every 54 new cases of diabetes diagnosed. For trial participants with no major diabetes risk factors, statin allocation was associated with a 52% reduction in the primary endpoint (HR 0·48, 95% CI 0·33-0·68, p=0·0001), a 53% reduction in venous thromboembolism (0·47, 0·21-1·03, p=0·05), a 22% reduction in total mortality (0·78, 0·59-1·03, p=0·08), and no increase in diabetes (0·99, 0·45-2·21, p=0·99). For such individuals, a total of 86 vascular events or deaths were avoided with no new cases of diabetes diagnosed. In analysis limited to the 486 participants who developed diabetes during follow-up (270 on rosuvastatin vs 216 on placebo; HR 1·25, 95% CI 1·05-1·49, p=0·01), the point estimate of cardiovascular risk reduction associated with statin therapy (HR 0·63, 95% CI 0·25-1·60) was consistent with that for the trial as a whole (0·56, 0·46-0·69). By comparison with placebo, statins accelerated the average time to diagnosis of diabetes by 5·4 weeks (84·3 [SD 47·8] weeks on rosuvastatin vs 89·7 [50·4] weeks on placebo).InterpretationIn the JUPITER primary prevention trial, the cardiovascular and mortality benefits of statin therapy exceed the diabetes hazard, including in participants at high risk of developing diabetes.FundingAstraZeneca.

Project description:Background Statins are a first line, evidence-based yet underprescribed treatment for cardiovascular primary prevention. In primary care settings, multimorbidity is a complex situation which makes it difficult to apply prevention guidelines. Aim To assess the associations between multimorbidity and prescription of statins in accordance with the 2016 ESC recommendations (“appropriate prescription”), and to identify the factors and conditions associated with these prescriptions. Design and setting Cross-sectional prospective study in the French region of Rhône-Alpes among 40 general practitioners and their patients. Methods We examined the association between appropriate statin prescription and several patient characteristics, including multimorbidity, using multivariate logistic regression models. Results Between August 2017 and February 2019, 327 patients were included in the study. Seventy-four (22.6%) were on statin medication and 199 (60.9%) exhibited multimorbidity, defined as ≥2 diseases. Only 22.5% of eligible patients were prescribed statins for primary prevention. Diabetes was most strongly associated with appropriate statin prescription (aOR 8.10, CI 95: 3.81–17.80). Multimorbidity was not associated with appropriate statin prescription (aOR 1.31, CI 95: 0.54–3.26), except in the presence of diabetes which defined diabetic multimorbidity (aOR 10.46, CI 95: 4.87–23.35). Conversely, non-diabetic multimorbidity was associated with lower odds of being appropriately prescribed a statin (aOR 0.26, CI 95: 0.12–0.56). Conclusion Multimorbidity, in itself, does not seem to be a determinant factor for appropriate statin prescription. The latter appears to be determined by a patient’s type of multimorbidity, especially the presence or not of diabetes. Differentiating between diabetic and non-diabetic multimorbidity may be a pragmatic way for GPs to improve primary prevention in a patient-centered and shared decision-making approach.

Dataset Information

Iranian general populations' and health care providers' preferences for benefits and harms of statin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Publications

Iranian general populations' and health care providers' preferences for benefits and harms of statin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets