Dataset Information

Patient-Perceived Versus Actual Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Associated Willingness to Consider and Use Prevention Therapy.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cardiovascular prevention guidelines use estimated 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk based on the pooled cohort equations to guide treatment decisions and engage patients in shared decision-making. We sought to determine patient perceived versus actual risk of atherosclerotic CVD and associations with willingness for preventive therapy.

Methods

We evaluated calculated and perceived CVD risk among 4187 patients across 124 sites in the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management Registry. Ten-year risk was assessed using the pooled cohort equations; risk relative-to-peers was determined based on age-, sex-, and race-based percentiles; and patient estimates of risk were assessed using patient surveys. Poisson regression models evaluated associations between risk estimates, statin use, and willingness to take prevention therapy.

Results

Overall, there was no correlation between patients' estimates of their 10-year CVD risk and calculated 10-year risk (ρ=-0.01, P_correlation=0.46), regardless of age, sex, race, or socioeconomic status. The majority (72.2%) overestimated their 10-year CVD risk relative to the pooled cohorts equation (mean perceived 33.3% versus mean calculated 17.1%, P_difference<0.01). Patients' perceptions of their risk relative-to-peers were slightly correlated with standardized risk percentiles (ρ=0.19, P<0.01), although most had overly optimistic views of how risk compared with their peers. Increasing perceived risk was not associated with current statin use (P=0.18) but was associated with willingness to consider future prevention therapy (P<0.01). Perceived risk relative-to-peers was associated with increased prevalent statin use (risk ratio 1.04 per category increase [95% CI, 1.02-1.06]) and reported willingness for prevention therapy (risk ratio 1.11 [95% CI, 1.07-1.16]).

Conclusions

When asked, most patients overestimate their 10-year risk but hold an optimistic bias of their risk relative to age-, race-, and sex-matched peers. Providing accurate absolute risk assessments to patients without proper context may paradoxically decrease many patients' perceived risk of CVD, thereby disincentivizing initiation of CVD risk reduction therapy.

SUBMITTER: Navar AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7855929 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo understand general practitioners' (GPs) use of individual risk factors (blood pressure and cholesterol levels) versus absolute risk in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk management decision-making.DesignRandomised experiment. Absolute risk, systolic blood pressure (SBP), cholesterol ratio (total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein (TC/HDL)) and age were systematically varied in hypothetical cases. High absolute risk was defined as 5-year risk of a cardiovascular event >15%, high blood pressure levels varied between SBP 147 and 179?mm?Hg and high cholesterol (TC/HDL ratio) between 6.5 and 7.2?mmol/L.Setting4 GP conferences in Australia.Participants144 Australian GPs.OutcomesGPs indicated whether they would prescribe cholesterol and/or blood pressure lowering medication. Analyses involved logistic regression.ResultsFor patients with high blood pressure: 93% (95% CI 86% to 96%) of high absolute risk patients and 83% (95% CI 76% to 88%) of lower absolute risk patients were prescribed blood pressure medication. Conversely, 30% (95% CI 25% to 36%) of lower blood pressure patients were prescribed blood pressure medication if absolute risk was high and 4% (95% CI 3% to 5%) if lower. 69% of high cholesterol/high absolute risk patients were prescribed cholesterol medication (95% CI 61% to 77%) versus 34% of high cholesterol/lower absolute risk patients (95% CI 28% to 41%). 36% of patients with lower cholesterol (95% CI 30% to 43%) were prescribed cholesterol medication if absolute risk was high versus 10% if lower (95% CI 8% to 13%).ConclusionsGPs' decision-making was more consistent with the management of individual risk factors than an absolute risk approach, especially when prescribing blood pressure medication. The results suggest medical treatment of lower risk patients (5-year risk of CVD event <15%) with mildly elevated blood pressure or cholesterol levels is likely to occur even when an absolute risk assessment is specifically provided. The results indicate a need for improving uptake of absolute risk guidelines and GP understanding of the rationale for using absolute risk.