Dataset Information

Patient Preference Distribution for Use of Statin Therapy.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Thresholds for initiating statin therapy should be informed by patients' preferences.

Objective

To define the preference distribution for statin therapy across the spectrum of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk after participants were informed about the benefits and harms of statin therapy.

Design, setting, and participants

A cross-sectional survey was conducted from May 13 to June 2, 2020. Participants included 304 individuals aged 40 to 75 years drawn from a nonprobability opt-in panel who had not taken a statin or proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor in the past 3 years and knew the results of their total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and blood pressure measurements.

Exposures

Personalized 10-year CVD risk with and without statin therapy and potential harms of statins.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was self-reported preference for statin therapy.

Results

The 304 participants had a mean (SD) age of 54.8 (9.9) years; 152 were women (50.0%), 130 (42.8%) non-White, 50 (16.6%) had a high school degree or less education, and 153 (50.8%) reported never needing help reading health materials. When asked their preference for using statin therapy after reviewing their benefit and risk information, 45% of the participants reported they would definitely or probably choose statin therapy. As the risk increased, the proportion who would choose statin therapy generally increased (from 31.1% for a risk <5% to 82.6% for a risk >50%). The minimum risk threshold had to increase to 20% before 75% of respondents in that risk group would want statin therapy. For participants with a risk greater than 10%, the desire to use statin therapy decreased as participants' health literacy, subjective numeracy, and knowledge scores increased.

Conclusions and relevance

In this study, preferences for statin therapy for primary prevention of CVD appeared to vary across the spectrum of 10-year cardiovascular risk, but they were relatively flat at intermediate levels of risk. This preference distribution suggests a broad risk range for shared decision-making.

SUBMITTER: Brodney S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7961307 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Patient reports of their adherence behaviors, concerns about statins, and perceptions of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk could inform approaches for improving adherence to statin therapy. We examined these factors and their associations with adherence.We conducted telephone interviews among a stratified random sample of adults receiving statins within an integrated delivery system (N = 730, 81% response rate) in 2010. We sampled equal numbers of individuals in three clinical risk categories: those with 1) coronary artery disease; 2) diabetes or other ASCVD diagnosis; and 3) no diabetes or ASCVD diagnoses. We assessed 15 potential concerns about and barriers to taking statins, and perceived risk of having a heart attack in the next 10 years (0-10 scale). We calculated the proportion of days covered (PDC) by statins in the last 12 months using dispensing data and used multivariate logistic regression to examine the characteristics associated with non-adherence (PDC<80%). Analyses were weighted for sampling proportions.Sixty-one percent of patients with PDC<50% reported not filling a new prescription, splitting or skipping statins, or stopping refilling statins in the last 12 months vs. 15% of those with PDC?80% (p<0.05). The most commonly reported concerns about statins were preferring to lower cholesterol with lifestyle changes (66%), disliking medications in general (59%), and liver or kidney problems (31%); having trouble remembering to take statins (9%) was the most common reason for taking less than prescribed. In multivariate analyses, clinical risk categories were not significantly associated with odds of non-adherence; however, those with higher perceived risk of heart attack were less likely to be non-adherent.Patient-reported medication-taking behaviors were correlated with statin PDC and those with lower perceived cardiovascular risk were less likely to be adherent. These findings highlight the importance of eliciting from and educating patients on their adherence behaviors and ASCVD risks.

Project description:To date, most clinical comparisons of ezetimibe-statin combination therapy versus statin monotherapy have relied entirely on surrogate variables. In this systematic review, we study the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe-statin combination therapy in comparison to statin monotherapy in terms of the prevention of cardiovascular events in hyperlipidemic patients with atherosclerosis and/or diabetes mellitus.This review is based on a systematic literature search (1995 to July 2015) in PubMed, the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), the Cochrane Library, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry.Nine randomized, controlled trials with data from a total of 19 461 patients were included. Ezetimibe-statin combination therapy was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events than statin monotherapy: 33% of the patients treated with ezetimibe and a statin, and 35% of those treated with a statin alone, had a cardiovascular event within seven years (number needed to treat [NNT]: 50 over 7 years). Combination therapy was also significantly more effective in preventing a composite endpoint consisting of death due to cardiovascular disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina pectoris, coronary revascularization, and nonfatal stroke (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [0,89; 0,99]; p = 0.016). Diabetic patients benefited from combination therapy rather than monotherapy with respect to cardiovascular morbidity (HR 0.87 [0.78; 0.94]). On the other hand, the addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy did not lessen either cardiovascular or overall mortality. Serious undesired events occurred in 38% of the patients taking ezetimibe and a statin nd in 39% of the patients taking a statin alone (relative risk 1.09 [0.77; 1.55]).In high-risk patients with an acute coronary syndrome, combination therapy with ezetimibe and a statin lowered the risk of cardiovascular events in comparison to statin monotherapy. The risk of dying or suffering an adverse drug effect was similar in the two treatment groups.

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.

Project description:Objectives: A factor contributing to the value of patient preference studies is patient centricity. This study aimed to explore how patients want to be involved in the design and conduct of patient preference studies. In addition, we investigated patients' expectations regarding the communication of study results back to patients. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patient representatives within three different disease areas: rheumatic diseases, cancer, and neuromuscular disorders. For each disease area, interviews were conducted with interviewees from Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Interviews followed a predefined interview guide covering topics relating to timing, level, and requirements for patient involvement in patient preference studies, as well as communication of results. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using framework analysis in NVivo 12. Results: A total of 14 interviews were conducted. Some interviewees believed that patients should be involved in all steps of a patient preference study. Patient involvement seemed most valuable during the design phase to support defining research questions and instrument design. During analysis, patients can be involved for optimal interpretation of results. Most interviewees mentioned that patient involvement should be on the level of advice or collaboration, not control. Interviewees expressed requirements for patient involvement relating to the knowledge of the involved patient, time investment, compensation and other incentives. Regarding communication of results, most interviewees wished to receive a brief and lay summary of the results, followed by a detailed explanation of both individual and average results accompanied by visuals. Conclusions: Patient involvement in patient preference studies could increase question comprehension by study participants and ensure correct interpretation of results by researchers. Patients want to be involved as advisors or collaborators, and considering their personal situation as well as establishing agreements on roles, time involvement and compensation early on will result in a most optimal partnership.