Patient perceptions and use of non-statin lipid lowering therapy among patients with or at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: Insights from the PALM registry.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Non-statin lipid lowering therapies (LLTs) provide additional treatment options for patients. Use patterns and patient perceptions of non-statin LLT remain incompletely described.Hypothesis
The guideline-recommended statin intensity remains underutilized in patients treated with and without non-statin LLT.Methods
The 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.Results
Among 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.Conclusions
Non-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.
SUBMITTER: Lowenstern A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8207979 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background Current treatment guidelines strongly recommend statin therapy for secondary prevention. However, it remains unclear whether patients' perceptions of cardiovascular risk, beliefs on cholesterol, or the intensity of prescribed statin therapy differs for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) versus cerebrovascular disease (CeVD) versus both CAD and CeVD (CAD&CeVD). Methods and Results The PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry collected data on statin use, intensity, and core laboratory low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels for 3232 secondary prevention patients treated at 133 US clinics. Among individuals with CeVD only (n=403), CAD only (n=2202), and CeVD&CAD (n=627), no significant differences were observed in patient-perceived cardiovascular disease risk, beliefs on cholesterol lowering, or perceived effectiveness and safety of statin therapy. However, patients with CeVD only were less likely to receive any statin therapy (76.2% versus 86.2%; adjusted odds ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.91), or guideline-recommended statin intensity (34.6% versus 50.4%; adjusted odds ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.45-0.81) than those with CAD only. Individuals with CeVD only were also less likely to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL (59.2% versus 69.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.99) than individuals with CAD alone. There were no significant differences in the use of any statin therapy or guideline-recommended statin intensity between individuals with CAD&CeVD and those with CAD only. Conclusions Despite lack of significant differences in patient-perceived cardiovascular risk or statin beliefs, patients with CeVD were significantly less likely to receive higher intensity statin or achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL than those with CAD only.
| S-EPMC6806030 | 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:Background Many adults eligible for statin therapy for cardiovascular disease prevention are untreated. Our objective was to investigate patient-reported reasons for statin underutilization, including noninitiation, refusal, and discontinuation. Methods and Results This study included the 5693 adults recommended for statin therapy in the PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry. Patient surveys evaluated statin experience, reasons for declining or discontinuing statins, and beliefs about statins and cardiovascular disease risk. Overall, 1511 of 5693 adults (26.5%) were not on treatment. Of those not on a statin, 894 (59.2%) reported never being offered a statin, 153 (10.1%) declined a statin, and 464 (30.7%) had discontinued therapy. Women (relative risk: 1.22), black adults (relative risk: 1.48), and those without insurance (relative risk: 1.38) were most likely to report never being offered a statin. Fear of side effects and perceived side effects were the most common reasons cited for declining or discontinuing a statin. Compared with statin users, those who declined or discontinued statins were less likely to believe statins are safe (70.4% of current users vs. 36.9% of those who declined and 37.4% of those who discontinued) or effective (86.3%, 67.4%, and 69.1%, respectively). Willingness to take a statin was high; 67.7% of those never offered and 59.7% of patients who discontinued a statin would consider initiating or retrying a statin. Conclusions More than half of patients eligible for statin therapy but not on treatment reported never being offered one by their doctor. Concern about side effects was the leading reason for statin refusal or discontinuation. Many patients were willing to reconsider statin therapy if offered.
| S-EPMC6509731 | 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:ImportanceGuidelines for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) recommend intensive statin therapy and adding nonstatin therapy if low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels are 70 mg/dL or more. Compliance with guidelines is often low.ObjectiveTo track LDL-C treatment patterns in the US over 2 years.Design, setting, and participantsGOULD is a prospective observational registry study involving multiple centers. Patients with ASCVD receiving any lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) were eligible. Between December 2016 and July 2018, patients were enrolled in 1 of 3 cohorts: (1) those currently receiving proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor (PCSK9i) and 2 groups not receiving PCSK9i drugs, with (2) LDL-C levels of 100 mg/dL or more or (3) LDL-C levels of 70 to 99 mg/dL. Patients had medical record reviews and telephone interviews every 6 months. Analysis was done on data collected as of October 5, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the change in LLT use in 2 years. Secondary outcomes included the number of LDL-C measurements, LDL-C levels, and responses to structured physician and patient questionnaires over 2 years.ResultsA total of 5006 patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 67.8 [9.9] years; 1985 women [39.7%]; 4312 White individuals [86.1%]). At 2 years, 885 (17.1%) had LLT intensification. In the cohorts with LDL-C levels of 100 mg/dL or more and 70 to 99 mg/dL, LLT intensification occurred in 403 (22.4%) and 383 (14.4%), respectively; statins were intensified in 115 (6.4%) and 168 (6.3%), ezetimibe added in 123 (6.8%) and 118 (4.5%), and PCSK9i added in 114 (6.3%) and 58 (2.2%), respectively. In the PCSK9i cohort, 508 of 554 (91.7%) were still taking PCSK9i at 2 years. Lipid panels were measured at least once over 2 years in 3768 patients (88.5%; PCSK9i cohort, 492 [96.1%]; LDL-C levels ≥100 mg/dL or more, 1294 [85.9%]; 70-99 mg/dL, 1982 [88.6%]). Levels of LDL-C fell from medians (interquartile ranges) of 120 (108-141) mg/dL to 95 (73-118) mg/dL in the cohort with LDL-C levels of 100 mg/dL or more, 82 (75-89) to 77 (65-90) mg/dL in the cohort with LDL-C levels of 70 to 99 mg/dL, and 67 (42-104) mg/dL to 67 (42-96) mg/dL in the PCSK9i cohort. Levels of LDL-C less than 70 mg/dL at 2 years were achieved by 308 patients (21.0%) and 758 patients (33.9%) in the cohorts with LDL-C levels of 100 mg/dL or more and 70 to 99 mg/dL, respectively, and 272 patients (52.4%) in the PCSK9i cohort. At 2 years, practice characteristics were associated with more LLT intensification (teaching vs nonteaching hospitals, 148 of 589 [25.1%] vs 600 of 3607 [16.6%]; lipid protocols or none, 359 of 1612 [22.3%] vs 389 of 2584 [15.1%]; cardiology, 452 of 2087 [21.7%] vs internal or family medicine, 204 of 1745 [11.7%] and other, 92 of 364 [25.3%]; all P < .001) and achievement of LDL-C less than 70 mg/dL (teaching vs nonteaching hospitals, 173 of 488 [35.5%] vs 823 of 2986 [27.6%]; lipid protocols vs none, 451 of 1411 [32.0%] vs 545 of 2063 [26.4%]; both P < .001; cardiology, 523 of 1686 [30.1%] vs internal or family medicine, 377 of 1472 [25.6%] and other, 96 of 316 [30.4%]; P = .003).Conclusions and relevanceOf patients with ASCVD, most with suboptimal LDL-C levels at baseline, only 17.1% had LLT intensification after 2 years, and two-thirds remained at an LDL-C level greater than 70 mg/dL. Further intensive efforts are needed to achieve optimal LDL-C management in patients with ASCVD.
| S-EPMC8209562 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Whether a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal is essential in secondary prevention is still being debated. The aim of our study was to investigate whether achieving particular LDL-C level goals is associated with the reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD) on statin therapy.From January 2010 to August 2014, a total of 4099 patients with ASCVD in the Taiwan Secondary Prevention for patients with AtheRosCLErotic disease (T-SPARCLE) registry were analyzed. The risk of a MACE was lower in patients with LDL-C level under control at < 100 mg/dL by statins than in patients with LDL-C level ?100 mg/dL whether on statin therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04?2.63, p = 0.03) or not (HR 2.04, 95% CI 1.06?3.94, p = 0.03). In multivariate Cox model analyses, statin intensity had no significant predictive value, and LDL-C ? 100 mg/dL was associated with a slight but not significant trend toward increased risk of MACEs (HR 1.41, 95% CI 0.96?2.07, p = 0.08).For patients with ASCVD on statin therapy guided by a target-driven strategy, failure to control LDL-C levels to < 100 mg/dL was associated with higher risk of MACEs. Statin intensity alone had no significant impact on the risk of MACEs after multivariate adjustment.
| S-EPMC5658082 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIn patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), guidelines recommend optimizing statin treatment, and consensus pathways suggest use of ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors in patients with persistently elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels despite use of statins. Recent trials have provided evidence of benefit in reduction of cardiovascular events with these agents.ObjectiveTo estimate the percentage of patients with ASCVD who would require a PCSK9 inhibitor when oral lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) is intensified first.Design, setting, and participantsThis simulation model study used a large administrative database of US medical and pharmacy claims to identify a cohort of 105 269 patients with ASCVD enrolled from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2013, who met the inclusion criteria (database cohort). Patients were sampled with replacement (bootstrapping) to match the US epidemiologic distribution and entered into a Monte Carlo simulation (simulation cohort) that applied stepwise treatment intensification algorithms in those with LDL-C levels of at least 70 mg/dL. All patients not initially receiving a statin were given atorvastatin, 20 mg, and the following LLT intensification steps were applied: uptitration to atorvastatin, 80 mg; add-on ezetimibe therapy; add-on alirocumab therapy, 75 mg (a PCSK9 inhibitor); and uptitration to alirocumab, 150 mg. Sensitivity analyses included evolocumab as a PCSK9 inhibitor. Efficacy was estimated from published studies and incorporated patient-level variation. Data were analyzed from December 2015 to May 2017.ExposuresTreatment intensification strategies with LLT.Main outcomes and measuresUse of LLT among the population with ASCVD and distributions of LDL-C levels under various treatment intensification scenarios.ResultsInclusion criteria were met by 105 269 individuals in the database cohort (57.2% male and 42.8% female; mean [SD] age, 65.1 [12.1] years). In the simulation cohort (1 million patients; 54.8% male and 45.2% female; mean [SD] age, 66.4 [12.2] years), before treatment intensification, 51.5% used statin monotherapy and 1.7% used statins plus ezetimibe. Only 25.2% achieved an LDL-C level of less than 70 mg/dL. After treatment intensification, 99.3% could achieve an LDL-C level of less than 70 mg/dL, including 67.3% with statin monotherapy, 18.7% with statins plus ezetimibe, and 14% with add-on PCSK9 inhibitor.Conclusions and relevanceLarge gaps exist between recommendations and current practice regarding LLT in the population with ASCVD. In our model that assumes no LLT intolerance and full adherence, intensification of oral LLT could achieve an LDL-C level of less than 70 mg/dL in most patients, with only a modest percentage requiring a PCSK9 inhibitor.
| S-EPMC5710173 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The effects on cardiovascular disease (CVD) by treatment recommendations on prevention of atherosclerotic CVD remain to be evaluated. The objectives were to assess treatment gap for low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) according to guidelines, potential impact on CVD outcomes, and possible avoided economic costs, in post myocardial infarction (MI) patients, if target LDL-C levels of ≤1.8 mmol/L would be achieved.All patients registered in the Swedish Secondary Prevention after Heart Intensive care Admission register, with one-year post-MI follow-up during 2013 were selected. The REACH risk prediction and a calibrated model for recurrent cardiovascular events and death were used to estimate unadjusted risk prediction based on the REACH equation henceforth called base case, and calibrated CVD outcomes based on gender-specific risk factors. The predicted impact of the LDL-C reduction on the risk of CVD was based on the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists´ Collaboration findings.A sample of n = 5904 patients (74% men) with a mean age of 64 years were included. Around 70% did not reach LDL-C target ≤1.8 mmol/L. Over a 10-year period, 820-2262 events were predicted to occur in those who did not reach target corresponding to 20% - 55% risk of CVD events. To achieve LDL-C target, the mean LDL-C had to be reduced by 0.73 mmol/L (29%). If this LDL-C reduction was achieved, 195-544 life years, 132-343 CVD events, and 7.9-20.9 million Swedish crowns (MSEK) of direct costs, and 19.3-51.0 MSEK of total costs would be avoided.Lowering of LDL cholesterol to achieve target levels according to guidelines for post-MI patients may lead to fewer cardiovascular events and avoidance of event costs.
| S-EPMC5559790 | biostudies-other
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:Intensive lipid management is critical to reduce cardiovascular (CV) risk for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM).MethodsWe performed an observational study of 7628 patients with (n = 2943) and without DM (n = 4685), enrolled in the Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry and treated at 140 outpatient clinics across the United States in 2015. Patient self-estimated CV risk, patient-perceived statin benefit and risk, observed statin therapy use and dosing were assessed.ResultsPatients with DM were more likely to believe that their CV risk was elevated compared with patients without DM (39.1% vs 29.3%, P < .001). Patients with DM were more likely to receive a statin (74.2% vs 63.5%, P < .001) but less likely to be treated with guideline-recommended statin intensity (36.5% vs 46.9%, P < .001), driven by the low proportion (16.5%) of high risk (ASCVD risk ≥7.5%) primary prevention DM patients treated with a high intensity statin. Patients with DM treated with guideline-recommended statin intensity were more likely to believe they were at high CV risk (44.9% vs 38.4%, P = .005) and that statins can reduce this risk (41.1% vs 35.6%, P = .02), compared with patients treated with lower than guideline-recommended statin intensity. Compared with patients with an elevated HgbA1c, patients with well-controlled DM were no more likely to be on a statin (77.9% vs 79.3%, P = .43).ConclusionsIn this nationwide study, the majority of patients with DM were treated with lower than guideline-recommended statin intensity. Patient education and engagement may help providers improve lipid therapy for these high-risk patients.
| S-EPMC7539544 | biostudies-literature