Potential use of 10-year and lifetime coronary risk information for preventive cardiology prescribing decisions: a primary care physician survey

Data from a national survey of United States primary care physicians on genetic risk scores for common disease prevention

Genetic risk scores (GRS) are an emerging and rapidly evolving genomic medicine innovation that may contribute to more precise risk stratification for disease prevention. Inclusion of GRS in routine medical care is imminent, and understanding how physicians perceive and intend to utilize GRS in practice is an important first step in facilitating uptake. This dataset was derived from an electronic survey and comprises one of the first, largest, and broadest samples of United States primary care physician perceptions on the clinical decision-making, benefits, barriers, and utility of GRS to date. The dataset is nearly complete (<1% missing data) and contains responses from 369 PCPs spanning 58 column variables. The public repository includes minimally filtered, de-identified data, all underlying survey versions and items, a data dictionary, and associated analytic files.

Primary care physician use of patient race and polygenic risk scores in medical decision-making

PURPOSE

The use of patient race in medicine is controversial for its potential either to exacerbate or address health disparities. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have emerged as a tool for risk stratification models used in preventive medicine. We examined whether PRS results affect primary care physician (PCP) medical decision-making and whether that effect varies by patient race.

METHODS

Using an online survey with a randomized experimental design among PCPs in a national database, we ascertained decision-making around atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention and prostate cancer screening for case scenario patients who were clinically identical except for randomized reported race.

RESULTS

Across 369 PCPs (email open rate = 10.8%, partial completion rate = 93.7%), recommendations varied with PRS results in expected directions (low-risk results, no available PRS results, and high-risk results). Still, physicians randomized to scenarios with Black patients were more likely to recommend statin therapy than those randomized to scenarios with White patients (odds ratio = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.16-2.59, P = .007) despite otherwise identical clinical profiles and independent of PRS results. Similarly, physicians were more likely to recommend prostate cancer screening for Black patients than for White patients (odds ratio = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.06-2.35, P = .025) despite otherwise identical clinical and genetic profiles.

CONCLUSION

Despite advances in precision risk stratification, physicians will likely continue to use patient race implicitly or explicitly in medical decision-making.

A survey of internists' recommendations for aspirin in older adults and barriers to evidence-based use

Recent trials suggest that aspirin for primary prevention may do more harm than good for some, including adults over 70 years of age. We sought to assess how primary care providers (PCPs) use aspirin for the primary prevention in older patients and to identify barriers to use according to recent guidelines, which recommend against routine use in patients over age 70. We surveyed PCPs about whether they would recommend aspirin in clinical vignettes of a 75-year-old patient with a 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk of 25%. We also queried perceived difficulty following guideline recommendations, as well as perceived barriers and facilitators. We obtained responses from 372 PCPs (47.9% response). In the patient vignette, 45.4% of clinicians recommended aspirin use, which did not vary by whether the patient was using aspirin initially (p = 0.21); 41.7% believed aspirin was beneficial. Perceived barriers to guideline-based aspirin use included concern about patients being upset (41.6%), possible malpractice claims (25.0%), and not having a strategy for discussing aspirin use (24.5%). The estimated adjusted probability of rating the guideline as "hard to follow" was higher in clinicians who believed aspirin was beneficial (29.4% vs. 8.0%; p < 0.001) and who worried the patient would be upset if told to stop aspirin (26.7% vs. 12.5%; p = 0.001). Internists vary considerably in their recommendations for aspirin use for primary prevention in older patients. A high proportion of PCPs continue to believe aspirin is beneficial in this setting. These results can inform de-implementation efforts to optimize evidence-based aspirin use.

American Heart Association's Life's Simple 7: Lifestyle Recommendations, Polygenic Risk, and Lifetime Risk of Coronary Heart Disease

Background: Understanding the effect of lifestyle and genetic risk on the lifetime risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) is important to improving public health initiatives. Our objective was to quantify remaining lifetime risk and years free of CHD according to polygenic risk and the American Heart Association's Life's Simple 7 (LS7) guidelines in a population-based cohort study. Methods: Our analysis included data from participants of the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) study: 8372 White and 2314 Black participants; 45 years of age and older; and free of CHD at baseline examination. A polygenic risk score (PRS) comprised more than 6 million genetic variants was categorized into low (<20th percentile), intermediate, and high (>80th percentile). An overall LS7 score was calculated at baseline and categorized into "poor," "intermediate," and "ideal" cardiovascular health. Lifetime risk and CHD-free years were computed according to polygenic risk and LS7 categories. Results: The overall remaining lifetime risk was 27%, ranging from 16.6% in individuals with an ideal LS7 score to 43.1% for individuals with a poor LS7 score. The association of PRS with lifetime risk differed according to ancestry. In White participants, remaining lifetime risk ranged from 19.8% to 39.3% according to increasing PRS categories. Individuals with a high PRS and poor LS7 had a remaining lifetime risk of 67.1% and 15.9 fewer CHD-free years than did those with intermediate polygenic risk and LS7 scores. In the high-PRS group, ideal LS7 was associated with 20.2 more CHD-free years compared with poor LS7. In Black participants, remaining lifetime risk ranged from 19.1% to 28.6% according to increasing PRS category. Similar lifetime risk estimates were observed for individuals of poor LS7 regardless of PRS category. In the high-PRS group, an ideal LS7 score was associated with only 4.5 more CHD-free years compared with a poor LS7 score. Conclusions: Ideal adherence to LS7 recommendations was associated with lower lifetime risk of CHD for all individuals, especially in those with high genetic susceptibility. In Black participants, adherence to LS7 guidelines contributed to lifetime risk of CHD more so than current PRSs. Improved PRSs are needed to properly evaluate genetic susceptibility for CHD in diverse populations.

Barriers and Facilitators to Using Statins: A Qualitative Study With Patients and Family Physicians

BACKGROUND

Despite their proven efficacy to reduce cardiovascular disease, statin medication use remains low in individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease considering their widespread availability and safety. Our objective was to explore the perspectives of patients and family physicians with regard to the barriers and facilitators of statin use in primary care.

METHODS

In this qualitative descriptive study, we conducted 2 focus groups with patients (number, n = 8/6) and individual semistructured interviews with family physicians (n = 17) from community settings. Interviewers asked participants about barriers to and facilitators of statin use. Focus groups and interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in duplicate using conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

Patients were averse to taking statins for a variety of reasons: medication avoidance and burden; inadequate buy-in for statin therapy; and difficulty remembering to take statins regularly. Family physicians perceived similar barriers and reported other barriers: lack of resources such as inadequate tracking systems; specialist-primary care provider guideline discordance; and lack of continuity and relationship. Patients expressed that key facilitators were patient education and support; splitting tablets to increase cost-effectiveness; and changing to a different statin or lower dose in those with side effects. Family physicians described several similar strategies to facilitate therapy as well as shared decision making and clinical decision support tools as enablers for improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified several important barriers to and facilitators of statin use at the patient and prescriber level. This information offers insight into strategies to improve statin use and the development of innovative programs and interventions.

Improving statin prescription through the involvement of nurses in the provision of ASCVD score: a quality improvement initiative in primary care

OBJECTIVES

This study compares two methods of providing CVD risk score on the percentage of appropriate statin therapy for primary prevention of CVD in family medicine clinics, according to the American Heart Association guidelines.

METHODS

Participants were non-diabetic patients aged 40 to 75 with a recently ordered low-density lipoprotein (LDL) level, not on statin therapy and free of CVD. The first intervention is passive with a display of the score on the EMR in the vital signs section and lasted for three months. The second intervention is collaborative where the nurses calculate the risk score and displayed it to the physician along with therapy recommendations. Electronic health records were reviewed to randomly select medical charts of eligible patients.

RESULTS

162 charts were randomly selected out of 547 eligible charts and included in the analysis, including 60 charts for the baseline group. Among moderate-risk patients, the percentage of appropriate statin initiation was 0% at baseline and after intervention 1; yet it increased to (33.3% [7.5-70.1, 95% CI]) after intervention 2. Among high risk patients, percentage of appropriate statin initiation was 9.1% [0.1-41.3, 95% CI], 11.1% [1.4, 34.7, 95% CI] and 28.6% [8.4, 58.1, 95% CI] during baseline, intervention 1 and intervention 2, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The provision of the CVD risk score alone as clinical decision support is not enough to improve statin initiation for primary prevention. The nurse collaboration can improve guideline-concordant statin initiation.

Sex differences in the burden of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk across the life course

By 2017 estimates, diabetes mellitus affects 425 million people globally; approximately 90-95% of these have type 2 diabetes. This narrative review highlights two domains of sex differences related to the burden of type 2 diabetes across the life span: sex differences in the prevalence and incidence of type 2 diabetes, and sex differences in the cardiovascular burden conferred by type 2 diabetes. In the presence of type 2 diabetes, the difference in the absolute rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) between men and women lessens, albeit remaining higher in men. Large-scale observational studies suggest that type 2 diabetes confers 25-50% greater excess risk of incident CVD in women compared with men. Physiological and behavioural mechanisms that may underpin both the observed sex differences in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes and the associated cardiovascular burden are discussed in this review. Gender differences in social behavioural norms and disparities in provider-level treatment patterns are also highlighted, but not described in detail. We conclude by discussing research gaps in this area that are worthy of further investigation.

Beginning with high value care in mind: A scoping review and toolkit to support the content, delivery, measurement, and sustainment of high value care

OBJECTIVE

To create a shared vision for the content, delivery, measurement, and sustainment of patient-centered high value care.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review and translated findings into toolkit for system leaders. For our scoping review, we searched Medline, 2005-November 2015, for literature on patient-centered care (PCC) and its relationship to a high value care change model. We supplemented searches with key author, Google Scholar, and key website searches. One author reviewed all titles, abstracts, and articles for inclusion; another reviewed a random 20%. To develop our toolkit, we translated evidence into simple, actionable briefs on key topics and added resources. We then iteratively circulated briefs and the overall toolkit to potential users, making updates as needed.

RESULTS

In our scoping review, we found multiple interventions and measures to support the components of PCC and our change model. We found little on the overall effects of PCC or how PCC creates value. Potential users reported our toolkit was simple, understandable, thorough, timely, and likely to be globally useful.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable evidence supports patient-centered high value care and a toolkit garnered enthusiasm.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The toolkit is ready for use, but needs comparison to other approaches.

The Optimizing-Risk-Communication (OptRisk) randomized trial - impact of decision-aid-based consultation on adherence and perception of cardiovascular risk

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is a well-established approach to increasing patient participation in medical decisions. Increasingly, using lifetime-risk or time-to-event (TTE) formats has been suggested, as these might have advantages in comparison with a 10-year risk prognosis, particularly for younger patients, whose lifetime risk for some events may be considerably greater than their 10-year risk. In this study, a randomized trial, the most popular 10-year risk illustration in the decision-aid software Arriba (emoticons), is compared with a newly developed TTE illustration, which is based on a Markov model. The study compares the effect of these two methods of presenting cardiovascular risk to patients on their subsequent adherence to intervention.

METHODS

A total of 294 patients were interviewed 3 months after they had had a consultation with their GP on cardiovascular risk prevention. Adherence to behavioral change or medication intervention was measured as the primary outcome. The latter was expressed as a generated score. Furthermore, different secondary outcomes were measured, ie, patient perception of risk and self-rated importance of avoiding a cardiovascular event, as well as patient numeracy, which was used as a proxy for patient health literacy.

RESULTS

Overall, no significant difference in patient adherence was found depending on risk representation. In the emoticon group, the number of interventions had a significant impact on the adherence score (P=0.025). Perception of risk was significantly higher in patients counseled with the TTE risk display, whereas the importance of avoiding a cardiovascular event was rated equally highly in both groups and actually increased over time.

CONCLUSION

The TTE format is an appropriate means for counseling patients. Adherence is a very complex construct, which cannot be fully explained by our findings. The study results support our call for considering TTE illustrations as a valuable alternative to current decision-support tools covering cardiovascular prevention. Nevertheless, further research is needed to shed light on patient motivation and adherence with regard to cardiovascular risk prevention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register and at the WHO International Clinical Trials Register Platform (ICTRP, ID DRKS00004933); registered February 2, 2016 (retrospectively registered).

Race-Sex Differences in Statin Use and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Control Among People With Diabetes Mellitus in the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke Study

Background

Statin therapy is a cornerstone of cardiovascular disease risk reduction for people with diabetes mellitus. Past reports have shown race‐sex differences in statin use in general populations, but statin patterns by race and sex in those with diabetes mellitus have not been thoroughly studied.

Methods and Results

Our sample of 4288 adults ≥45 years of age with diagnosed diabetes mellitus who had low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) >100 mg/dL or were taking statins recruited for the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study from 2003 to 2007. Exposures included race‐sex groups (white men [WM], black men [BM], white women [WW], black women [BW]) and factors that may influence healthcare utilization. Proportions and prevalence ratios were calculated for statin use and LDL‐C control. Statin use for WM, BM, WW, and BW was 66.0%, 57.8%, 55.0%, and 53.6%, respectively (P<0.001). After adjustment for healthcare utilization factors, statin use was lower for BM, WW, and BW compared with WM (prevalence ratios [95%CI]: 0.96 [0.89‐1.03], 0.86 [0.80‐0.92], and 0.87 [0.81‐0.93], respectively, P<0.001). LDL‐C control among those taking statins for WM, BM, WW, and BW was 75.3%, 62.7%, 69.0%, and 56.0%, respectively (P<0.001). After adjustment, LDL‐C control was lower for BM, WW, and BW compared with WM (prevalence ratios [95%CI]: 0.85 [0.79‐0.93], 0.89 [0.82‐0.96], and 0.73 [0.67‐0.80], respectively, P<0.001).

Conclusions

Race‐sex disparities in statin use and LDL‐C control were only partly explained by factors influencing health services utilization. Healthcare provider awareness of these disparities may help to close the observed race‐sex gaps in statin use and LDL‐C control among people with diabetes mellitus.

Time-to-event versus ten-year-absolute-risk in cardiovascular risk prevention - does it make a difference? Results from the Optimizing-Risk-Communication (OptRisk) randomized-controlled trial

Background

The concept of shared-decision-making is a well-established approach to increase the participation of patients in medical decisions. Using lifetime risk or time-to-event (TTE) formats has been increasingly suggested as they might have advantages, e.g. in younger patients, to better show consequences of unhealthy behaviour. In this study, the most-popular ten-year risk illustration in the decision-aid-software arriba^TM (emoticons), is compared within a randomised trial to a new-developed TTE illustration, which is based on a Markov model.

Methods

Thirty-two General Practitioners (GPs) took part in the study. A total of 304 patients were recruited and counseled by their GPs with arriba^TM, and randomized to either the emoticons or the TTE illustration, followed by a patient questionnaire to figure out the degree of shared-decision-making (PEF-FB9, German questionnaire to measure the participation in the shared decision-making process, primary outcome), as well as the decisional conflict, perceived risk, accessibility and the degree of information, which are all secondary outcomes.

Results

Regarding our primary outcome PEF-FB9 the new TTE illustration is not inferior compared to the well-established emoticons taking the whole study population into account. Furthermore, the non-inferiority of the innovative TTE could be confirmed for all secondary outcome variables. The explorative analysis indicates even advantages in younger patients (below 46 years of age).

Conclusion

The TTE format seems to be as useful as the well-established emoticons. For certain patient populations, especially younger patients, the TTE may be even superior to demonstrate a cardiovascular risk at early stages. Our results suggest that time-to-event illustrations should be considered for current decision support tools covering cardiovascular prevention.

Trial registration

The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register and at the WHO International Clinical Trials Register Platform (ICTRP, ID DRKS00004933); registered 2 February 2016 (retrospectively registered).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0393-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Repeat Cardiovascular Risk Assessment after Four Years: Is There Improvement in Risk Prediction?

BACKGROUND

Framingham risk equations are widely used to predict cardiovascular disease based on health information from a single time point. Little is known regarding use of information from repeat risk assessments and temporal change in estimated cardiovascular risk for prediction of future cardiovascular events. This study was aimed to compare the discrimination and risk reclassification of approaches using estimated cardiovascular risk at single and repeat risk assessments.

METHODS

Using data on 12,197 individuals enrolled in EPIC-Norfolk cohort, with 12 years of follow-up, we examined rates of cardiovascular events by levels of estimated absolute risk (Framingham risk score) at the first and second health examination four years later. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (aROC) and risk reclassification, comparing approaches using information from single and repeat risk assessments (i.e., estimated risk at different time points).

RESULTS

The mean Framingham risk score increased from 15.5% to 17.5% over a mean of 3.7 years from the first to second health examination. Individuals with high estimated risk (≥20%) at both health examinations had considerably higher rates of cardiovascular events than those who remained in the lowest risk category (<10%) in both health examinations (34.0 [95%CI 31.7-36.6] and 2.7 [2.2-3.3] per 1,000 person-years respectively). Using information from the most up-to-date risk assessment resulted in a small non-significant change in risk classification over the previous risk assessment (net reclassification improvement of -4.8%, p>0.05). Using information from both risk assessments slightly improved discrimination compared to information from a single risk assessment (aROC 0.76 and 0.75 respectively, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Using information from repeat risk assessments over a period of four years modestly improved prediction, compared to using data from a single risk assessment. However, this approach did not improve risk classification.

Individualized Risk Communication and Outreach for Primary Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Community Health Centers: Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Many eligible primary cardiovascular disease prevention candidates are not treated with statins. Electronic health record data can identify patients with increased cardiovascular disease risk.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a pragmatic randomized controlled trial at community health centers in 2 states. Participants were men aged ≥35 years and women ≥45 years, without cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus, and with a 10-year risk of coronary heart disease of at least 10%. The intervention group received telephone and mailed outreach, individualized based on patients' cardiovascular disease risk and uncontrolled risk factors, provided by lay health workers. Main outcomes included: documented discussion of medication treatment for cholesterol with a primary care clinician, receipt of statin prescription within 6 months, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol repeated and at least 30 mg/dL lower than baseline within 1 year. Six hundred forty-six participants (328 and 318 in the intervention and control groups, respectively) were included. At 6 months, 26.8% of intervention and 11.6% of control patients had discussed cholesterol treatment with a primary care clinician (odds ratio, 2.79; [95% confidence interval, 2.25-3.46]). Statin prescribing occurred for 10.1% in the intervention group and 6.0% in the control group (odds ratio, 1.76; [95% confidence interval, 0.90-3.45]). The cholesterol outcome did not differ, and the majority of patients did not repeat lipid levels during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk communication and lay outreach increased cholesterol treatment discussions with primary care clinicians. However, most discussions did not result in statin prescribing. For outreach to be successful, it should be combined with interventions to encourage clinicians to follow contemporary risk-based cholesterol treatment guidelines.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clincialtrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01610609.

Race-sex differences in the management of hyperlipidemia: the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study

BACKGROUND

Lipid management is less aggressive in blacks than whites and women than men.

PURPOSE

To examine whether differences in lipid management for race-sex groups compared to white men are due to factors influencing health services utilization or physician prescribing patterns.

METHODS

Because coronary heart disease (CHD) risk influences physician prescribing, Adult Treatment Panel III CHD risk categories were constructed using baseline data from REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke study participants (recruited 2003-2007). Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hyperlipidemia were examined for race-sex groups across CHD risk categories. Multivariable models conducted in 2013 estimated prevalence ratios adjusted for predisposing, enabling, and need factors influencing health services utilization.

RESULTS

The analytic sample included 7,809 WM; 7,712 white women; 4,096 black men; and 6,594 black women. Except in the lowest risk group, black men were less aware of hyperlipidemia than others. A higher percentage of white men in the highest risk group was treated (83.2%) and controlled (72.8%) than others (treatment, 68.6%-72.1%; control, 52.2%-65.5%), with black women treated and controlled the least. These differences remained significant after adjustment for predisposing, enabling, and need factors. Stratified analyses demonstrated that treatment and control were lower for other race-sex groups relative to white men only in the highest risk category.

CONCLUSIONS

Hyperlipidemia was more aggressively treated and controlled among white men compared with white women, black men, and especially black women among those at highest risk for CHD. These differences were not attributable to factors influencing health services utilization.

Do clinicians recommend aspirin to patients for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?

BACKGROUND

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released updated guidelines in 2009 recommending aspirin to prevent myocardial infarction among at-risk men and stroke among at-risk women.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to examine clinician aspirin recommendation among eligible persons based on cardiovascular risk scores and USPSTF cutoffs.

DESIGN

We used across-sectional analysis of a current nationally representative sample.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were aged 40 years and older, and in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) (2011-2012).

MAIN MEASURES

We determined aspirin eligibility for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention for each participant based on reported and assessed cardiovascular risk factors. We assessed men's risk using a published coronary heart disease risk calculator based on Framingham equations, and used a similar calculator for stroke to assess risk for women. We applied the USPSTF risk cutoffs for sex and age that account for offsetting risk for gastrointestinal hemorrhage. We assessed clinician recommendation for aspirin based on participant report.

RESULTS

Among men 45-79 years and women 55-79 years, 87 % of men and 16 % of women were potentially eligible for primary CVD aspirin prevention. Clinician recommendation rates for aspirin among those eligible were low, 34 % for men and 42 % for women. Rates were highest among diabetics (63 %), those 65 to 79 years (52 %) or those in poor health (44 %). In contrast, aspirin recommendation rates were 76 % for CVD secondary prevention. After accounting for patient factors, particularly age, eligibility for aspirin prevention was not significantly associated with receiving a clinician's recommendation for aspirin (AOR 0.99 %; CI 0.7-1.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an "A recommendation" from the USPSTF for aspirin for primary prevention of CVD, the majority of men and women potentially eligible for aspirin did not recall a clinical recommendation from their clinician.

Headed in the right direction but at risk for miscalculation: a critical appraisal of the 2013 ACC/AHA risk assessment guidelines

The newly released 2013 ACC/AHA Guidelines for Assessing Cardiovascular Risk makes progress compared with previous cardiovascular risk assessment algorithms. For example, the new focus on total atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD) is now inclusive of stroke in addition to hard coronary events, and there are now separate equations to facilitate estimation of risk in non-Hispanic white and black individuals and separate equations for women. Physicians may now estimate lifetime risk in addition to 10-year risk. Despite this progress, the new risk equations do not appear to lead to significantly better discrimination than older models. Because the exact same risk factors are incorporated, using the new risk estimators may lead to inaccurate assessment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in special groups such as younger individuals with unique ASCVD risk factors. In general, there appears to be an overestimation of risk when applied to modern populations with greater use of preventive therapy, although the magnitude of overestimation remains unclear. Because absolute risk estimates are directly used for treatment decisions in the new cholesterol guidelines, these issues could result in overuse of pharmacologic management. The guidelines could provide clearer direction on which individuals would benefit from additional testing, such as coronary calcium scores, for more personalized preventive therapies. We applaud the advances of these new guidelines, and we aim to critically appraise the applicability of the risk assessment tools so that future iterations of the estimators can be improved to more accurately assess risk in individual patients.

Effects of 2 educational interventions on the management of hypertensive patients in primary health care

INTRODUCTION

Experimental studies on the effectiveness of educational interventions to improve patient care are scarce, especially for low-resources settings. This study investigated the effects of 2 educational interventions on the treatment of hypertensive patients in primary health care in Brazil.

METHODS

Forty-one physicians were randomly assigned either to an "active educational intervention" (21 physicians) or to a "passive educational intervention" (20 physicians). The former comprised 1 small group discussion of routine practices, 1 outreach visit, and 3 reminders. The latter consisted of delivery of printed guidelines. Measures of quality of treatment provided for hypertensive patients (181 patients of physicians from the active intervention; 136 patients of physicians from the passive intervention) were obtained through patient interview and charts review, before and 3 months after the intervention. Chi-square and independent t-tests were performed for comparison between the conditions.

RESULTS

The groups did not differ before the study. After the intervention, the active intervention group outperformed the passive intervention group in several measures, such as improved prescription of antihypertensive drugs (80% of patients of physicians from the active intervention vs 51% patients of physicians from the passive intervention; p < .01), prescription of aspirin (18% vs 6%; p < .01) and hypolipidemic drugs for high-risk patients (39% vs 21%; p < .01), dietary counseling (76% vs 61%; p < .01), guidance on cardiovascular risk (20% vs 3%; p < .01). Patient outcomes did not differ.

DISCUSSION

A multifaceted intervention based on review of practices improved treatment of hypertensive patients in a low-resource setting whereas delivery of guidelines did not help. None of the interventions affected patient outcomes.

Risk predictive modelling for diabetes and cardiovascular disease

Absolute risk models or clinical prediction models have been incorporated in guidelines, and are increasingly advocated as tools to assist risk stratification and guide prevention and treatments decisions relating to common health conditions such as cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes mellitus. We have reviewed the historical development and principles of prediction research, including their statistical underpinning, as well as implications for routine practice, with a focus on predictive modelling for CVD and diabetes. Predictive modelling for CVD risk, which has developed over the last five decades, has been largely influenced by the Framingham Heart Study investigators, while it is only ∼20 years ago that similar efforts were started in the field of diabetes. Identification of predictive factors is an important preliminary step which provides the knowledge base on potential predictors to be tested for inclusion during the statistical derivation of the final model. The derived models must then be tested both on the development sample (internal validation) and on other populations in different settings (external validation). Updating procedures (e.g. recalibration) should be used to improve the performance of models that fail the tests of external validation. Ultimately, the effect of introducing validated models in routine practice on the process and outcomes of care as well as its cost-effectiveness should be tested in impact studies before wide dissemination of models beyond the research context. Several predictions models have been developed for CVD or diabetes, but very few have been externally validated or tested in impact studies, and their comparative performance has yet to be fully assessed. A shift of focus from developing new CVD or diabetes prediction models to validating the existing ones will improve their adoption in routine practice.

Providing clinicians with a patient's 10-year cardiovascular risk improves their statin prescribing: a true experiment using clinical vignettes

BACKGROUND

Statins are effective for primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) disease, the leading cause of death in the world. Multinational guidelines emphasize CV risk as an important factor for optimal statin prescribing. However, it's not clear how primary care providers (PCPs) use this information. The objective of this study was to determine how primary care providers use information about global CV risk for primary prevention of CV disease.

METHODS

A double-blinded, randomized experiment using clinical vignettes mailed to office-based PCPs in the United States who were identified through the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile in June 2012. PCPs in the control group received clinical vignettes with all information on the risk factors needed to calculate CV risk. The experimental group received the same vignettes in addition to the subject's 10-year calculated CV risk (Framingham risk score). The primary study outcome was the decision to prescribe a statin.

RESULTS

Providing calculated CV risk to providers increased statin prescribing in the two high-risk cases (CV risk > 20%) by 32 percentage points (41% v. 73%; 95% CI = 23-40, p <0.001; relative risk [RR] = 1.78) and 16 percentage points (12% v. 27%, 95% CI 8.5-22.5%, p <0.001; RR = 2.25), and decreased statin prescribing in the lowest risk case (CV risk = 2% risk) by 9 percentage points [95% CI = 1.00-16.7%, p = 0.003, RR = 0.88]. Fewer than 20% of participants in each group reported routinely calculating 10-year CV risk in their patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers do not routinely calculate 10-year CV risk for their patients. In this vignette experiment, PCPs undertreated low LDL, high CV risk patients. Giving providers a patient's calculated CV risk improved statin prescribing. Providing PCPs with accurate estimates of patient CV risk at the point of service has the potential to improve the efficiency of statin prescribing.

Evaluating an implementation strategy in cardiovascular prevention to improve prescribing of statins in Germany: an intention to treat analysis

BACKGROUND

The prescription of statins is an evidence-based treatment to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with elevated cardiovascular risk or with a cardiovascular disorder (CVD). In spite of this, many of these patients do not receive statins.

METHODS

We evaluated the impact of a brief educational intervention in cardiovascular prevention in primary care physicians' prescribing behaviour regarding statins beyond their participation in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). For this, prescribing data of all patients > 35 years who were counselled before and after the study period were analysed (each n > 75,000). Outcome measure was prescription of Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors (statins) corresponding to patients' overall risk for CVD. Appropriateness of prescribing was examined according to different risk groups based on the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System (ATC codes).

RESULTS

There was no consistent association between group allocation and statin prescription controlling for risk status in each risk group before and after study participation. However, we found a change to more significant drug configurations predicting the prescription of statins in the intervention group, which can be regarded as a small intervention effect.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that an active implementation of a brief evidence-based educational intervention does not lead to prescription modifications in everyday practice. Physician's prescribing behaviour is affected by an established health care system, which is not easy to change.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN71348772.

Electronic health record-based patient identification and individualized mailed outreach for primary cardiovascular disease prevention: a cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Many individuals at higher risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) do not receive recommended treatments. Prior interventions using personalized risk information to promote prevention did not test clinic-wide effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN

To perform a 9-month cluster-randomized trial, comparing a strategy of electronic health record-based identification of patients with increased CVD risk and individualized mailed outreach to usual care.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients of participating physicians with a Framingham Risk Score of at least 5 %, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol level above guideline threshold for drug treatment, and not prescribed a lipid-lowering medication were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

INTERVENTION

Patients of physicians randomized to the intervention group were mailed individualized CVD risk messages that described benefits of using a statin (and controlling hypertension or quitting smoking when relevant).

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome was occurrence of a LDL-cholesterol level, repeated in routine practice, that was at least 30 mg/dl lower than prior. A secondary outcome was lipid-lowering drug prescribing. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01286311.

KEY RESULTS

Fourteen physicians with 218 patients were randomized to intervention, and 15 physicians with 217 patients to control. The mean patient age was 60.7 years and 77% were male. There was no difference in the primary outcome (11.0 % vs. 11.1 %, OR 0.99, 95 % CI 0.56-1.74, P = 0.96), but intervention group patients were twice as likely to receive a prescription for lipid-lowering medication (11.9 %, vs. 6.0 %, OR 2.13, 95 % CI 1.05-4.32, p = 0.038). In post hoc analysis with extended follow-up to 18 months, the primary outcome occurred more often in the intervention group (22.5 % vs. 16.1 %, OR 1.59, 95 % CI 1.05-2.41, P = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

In this effectiveness trial, individualized mailed CVD risk messages increased the frequency of new lipid-lowering drug prescriptions, but we observed no difference in proportions lowering LDL-cholesterol after 9 months. With longer follow-up, the intervention's effect on LDL-cholesterol levels was apparent.

Lifetime risk of developing coronary heart disease in Aboriginal Australians: a cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Lifetime risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) is an important yardstick by which policy makers, clinicians and the general public can assess and promote the awareness and prevention of CHD. The lifetime risk in Aboriginal people is not known. Using a cohort with up to 20 years of follow-up, we estimated the lifetime risk of CHD in Aboriginal people.

DESIGN

A cohort study.

SETTING

A remote Aboriginal region.

PARTICIPANTS

1115 Aboriginal people from one remote tribal group who were free from CHD at baseline were followed for up to 20 years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

During the follow-up period, new CHD incident cases were identified through hospital and death records. We estimated the lifetime risks of CHD with and without adjusting for the presence of competing risk of death from non-CHD causes.

RESULTS

Participants were followed up for 17 126 person-years, during which 185 developed CHD and 144 died from non-CHD causes. The average age at which the first CHD event occurred was 48 years for men and 49 years for women. The risk of developing CHD increased with age until 60 years and then decreased with age. Lifetime cumulative risk without adjusting for competing risk was 70.7% for men and 63.8% for women. Adjusting for the presence of competing risk of death from non-CHD causes, the lifetime risk of CHD was 52.6% for men and 49.2% for women.

CONCLUSIONS

Lifetime risk of CHD is as high as one in two in both Aboriginal men and women. The average age of having first CHD events was under 50 years, much younger than that reported in non-Aboriginal populations. Our data provide useful knowledge for health education, screening and prevention of CHD in Aboriginal people.

Prediction models for risk classification in cardiovascular disease

Risk stratification is an increasingly important tool for the management of patients with different diseases and also for decision making in subjects not yet with overt disease but who are at risk of disease in the short or long term or during their lifetime. Careful risk assessment in the individual patient, based on clinical, laboratory and imaging data, can be helpful for making decisions about treatment or other prevention strategies. As regards cardiovascular disease, many models have been suggested and are available for the prediction of diagnosis and prognosis and there are several algorithms for risk prediction. However, current risk screening methods are not perfect. This review evaluates relative strengths and limitations of traditional and more recent methods for assessing the performance of prediction models.

Overtreatment and undertreatment of hyperlipidemia in the outpatient setting

BACKGROUND

National guidelines recommend lipid-lowering therapy for patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), its equivalent (eg, diabetes mellitus, peripheral arterial disease, cerebrovascular disease), and those at high risk of CHD. Quality-of-care studies demonstrate that patients at high risk of CHD are undertreated. Overtreatment of patients at low risk of CHD remains relatively unexplored. Our study aimed to determine patient characteristics associated with under- and overtreatment of hyperlipidemia.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients aged 35 to 80 years attending an inner-city ambulatory teaching clinic. We noted patients' 10-year cardiovascular risk based on the Framingham Heart Study equation, other patient demographics, pretreatment lipid levels, and whether they received a prescription for lipid-lowering therapy.

RESULTS

Of 676 patients included, 46% were at high (>15% for 10 years) and 37% were at low (<5%) risk. Of the patients at high risk for CHD, 34% received no drug therapy, including 5% of patients with known CHD; 37% of patients with diabetes mellitus; and 59% of patients without CHD equivalents. Undertreatment was associated with lower low-density lipoprotein (LDL; odds ratio [OR] per 30 mg/dL 2.7, confidence interval [CI] 2.0-3.6), fewer risk factors (OR per risk factor 1.5 CI 1.1-2.1), and not receiving other preventive care interventions (OR 2.1, CI 1.0-4.5). Of 247 patients at low risk for CHD, 8% received drug therapy. Overtreatment was associated with higher LDL (OR per 30 mg/dL 3.0, CI 1.7-5.3) and more cardiac risk factors (OR per risk factor 3.1, CI 1.4-6.7). Age, race, sex, and specific risk factors were not associated with overtreatment or undertreatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Both overtreatment and under-treatment are common. Physicians' decisions appear to reflect LDL values and number of risk factors rather than calculated cardiovascular risk.

Lifetime risk for cancer death by sex and smoking status: the lifetime risk pooling project

BACKGROUND

Understanding how sex and tobacco exposure may modify lifetime risks for cancer mortality is important for effective communication of risk in targeted public health messages.

OBJECTIVE

To determine lifetime risk estimates for cancer death associated with sex and smoking status in the United States.

METHODS

A pooled cohort design using ten well-defined epidemiologic cohorts including middle-aged and older individuals was used to estimate the lifetime risk for cancer death at selected index ages, with death from non-cancer causes as the competing risk, by sex and smoking status.

RESULTS

There were a total of 11,317 cancer-related deaths. At age 45 years, the lifetime risk of cancer death for male smokers is 27.7 % (95 % CI 24.0-31.4 %) compared to 15.8 % (95 % CI 12.7-18.9 %) for male non-smokers. At age 45 years, the lifetime risk of cancer death for female smokers is 21.7 % (95 % CI 18.8-24.6 %) compared to 13.2 % (95 % CI 11.0-15.4 %) for female non-smokers. Remaining lifetime risk for cancer death declined with age, and men have a greater risk for cancer death compared to women. Adjustment for competing risk of death, particularly representing cardiovascular mortality, yielded a greater change in lifetime risk estimates for men and smokers compared to women and non-smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

At the population level, the lifetime risk for cancer death remains significantly higher for smokers compared to non-smokers, regardless of sex. These estimates may provide clinicians with useful information for counseling individual patients and highlight the need for continued public health efforts related to smoking cessation.

Using body mass index data in the electronic health record to calculate cardiovascular risk

BACKGROUND

Multivariable cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculators, such as the Framingham risk equations, can be used to identify populations most likely to benefit from treatments to decrease risk.

PURPOSE

To determine the proportion of adults within an electronic health record (EHR) for whom Framingham CVD risk scores could be calculated using cholesterol (lab-based) and/or BMI (BMI-based) formulae.

METHODS

EHR data were used to identify patients aged 30-74 years with no CVD and at least 2 years continuous enrollment before April 1, 2010, and relevant data from the preceding 5-year time frame. Analyses were conducted between 2010 and 2011 to determine the proportion of patients with a lab- or BMI-based risk score, the data missing, and the concordance between scores.

RESULTS

Of 122,270 eligible patients, 59.7% (n=73,023) had sufficient data to calculate the lab-based risk score and 84.1% (102,795) the BMI-based risk score. Risk categories were concordant in 78.2% of patients. When risk categories differed, BMI-based risk was almost always in a higher category, with 20.3% having a higher and 1.4% a lower BMI- than lab-based risk score. Concordance between lab- and BMI-based risk was greatest among those at lower estimated risk, including people who were younger, female, without diabetes, not obese, and those not on blood pressure- or lipid-lowering medications.

CONCLUSIONS

EHR data can be used to classify CVD risk for most adults aged 30-74 years. In the population for the current study, CVD risk scores based on BMI could be used to identify those at low risk for CVD and potentially reduce unnecessary laboratory cholesterol testing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT01077388.

Use of global coronary heart disease risk assessment in practice: a cross-sectional survey of a sample of U.S. physicians

Background

Global coronary heart disease (CHD) risk assessment is recommended to guide primary preventive pharmacotherapy. However, little is known about physicians' understanding and use of global CHD risk assessment. Our objective was to examine US physicians' awareness, use, and attitudes regarding global CHD risk assessment in clinical practice, and how these vary by provider specialty.

Methods

Using a web-based survey of US family physicians, general internists, and cardiologists, we examined awareness of tools available to calculate CHD risk, method and use of CHD risk assessment, attitudes towards CHD risk assessment, and frequency of using CHD risk assessment to guide recommendations of aspirin, lipid-lowering and blood pressure (BP) lowering therapies for primary prevention. Characteristics of physicians indicating they use CHD risk assessments were compared in unadjusted and adjusted analyses.

Results

A total of 952 physicians completed the questionnaire, with 92% reporting awareness of tools available to calculate CHD global risk. Among those aware of such tools, over 80% agreed that CHD risk calculation is useful, improves patient care, and leads to better decisions about recommending preventive therapies. However, only 41% use CHD risk assessment in practice. The most commonly reported barrier to CHD risk assessment is that it is too time consuming. Among respondents who calculate global CHD risk, 69% indicated they use it to guide lipid lowering therapy recommendations; 54% use it to guide aspirin therapy recommendations; and 48% use it to guide BP lowering therapy. Only 40% of respondents who use global CHD risk routinely tell patients their risk. Use of a personal digital assistant or smart phone was associated with reported use of CHD risk assessment (adjusted OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.17-2.12).

Conclusions

Reported awareness of tools to calculate global CHD risk appears high, but the majority of physicians in this sample do not use CHD risk assessments in practice. A minority of physicians in this sample use global CHD risk to guide prescription decisions or to motivate patients. Educational interventions and system improvements to improve physicians' effective use of global CHD risk assessment should be developed and tested.

A multiple biomarker risk score for guiding clinical decisions using a decision curve approach

Aims: We assessed whether a cardiovascular risk model based on classic risk factors (e.g. cholesterol, blood pressure) could refine disease prediction if it included novel biomarkers (C-reactive protein, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, troponin I) using a decision curve approach which can incorporate clinical consequences.

Methods and results: We evaluated whether a model including biomarkers and classic risk factors could improve prediction of 10 year risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD; chronic heart disease and ischaemic stroke) against a classic risk factor model using a decision curve approach in two prospective MORGAM cohorts. This included 7739 men and women with 457 CVD cases from the FINRISK97 cohort; and 2524 men with 259 CVD cases from PRIME Belfast. The biomarker model improved disease prediction in FINRISK across the high-risk group (20⊟40%) but not in the intermediate risk group, at the 23% risk threshold net benefit was 0.0033 (95% CI 0.0013−0.0052). However, in PRIME Belfast the net benefit of decisions guided by the decision curve was improved across intermediate risk thresholds (10⊟20%). At pt = 10% in PRIME, the net benefit was 0.0059 (95% CI 0.0007⊟0.0112) with a net increase in 6 true positive cases per 1000 people screened and net decrease of 53 false positive cases per 1000 potentially leading to 5% fewer treatments in patients not destined for an event.

Conclusion: The biomarker model improves 10-year CVD prediction at intermediate and high-risk thresholds and in particular, could be clinically useful at advising middle-aged European males of their CVD risk.

Primary prevention of coronary heart disease: integration of new data, evolving views, revised goals, and role of rosuvastatin in management. A comprehensive survey

A recent explosion in the amount of cardiovascular risk and incipient, undetected subclinical cardiovascular pathology has swept across the globe. Nearly 70% of adult Americans are overweight or obese; the prevalence of visceral obesity stands at 53% and continues to rise. At any one time, 55% of the population is on a weight-loss diet, and almost all fail. Fewer than 15% of adults or children exercise sufficiently, and over 60% engage in no vigorous activity. Among adults, 11%-13% have diabetes, 34% have hypertension, 36% have prehypertension, 36% have prediabetes, 12% have both prediabetes and prehypertension, and 15% of the population with either diabetes, hypertension, or dyslipidemia are undiagnosed. About one-third of the adult population, and 80% of the obese, have fatty livers. With 34% of children overweight or obese, prevalence having doubled in just a few years, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and fatty livers in children are at their highest levels ever. Half of adults have at least one cardiovascular risk factor. Not even 1% of the population attains ideal cardiovascular health. Despite falling coronary death rates for decades, coronary heart disease (CHD) death rates in US women 35 to 54 years of age may now be increasing because of the obesity epidemic. Up to 65% of patients do not have their conventional risk biomarkers under control. Only 30% of high risk patients with CHD achieve aggressive low density lipoprotein (LDL) targets. Of those patients with multiple risk factors, fewer than 10% have all of them adequately controlled. Even when patients are titrated to evidence-based targets, about 70% of cardiac events remain unaddressed. Undertreatment is also common. About two-thirds of high risk primary care patients are not taking needed medications for dyslipidemia. Poor patient adherence, typically below 50%, adds further difficulty. Hence, after all such fractional reductions are multiplied, only a modest portion of total cardiovascular risk burden is actually being eliminated, and the full potential of risk reduction remains unrealized. Worldwide the situation is similar, with the prevalence of metabolic syndrome approaching 50%. Primordial prevention, resulting from healthful lifestyle habits that do not permit the appearance of risk factors, is the preferred method to lower cardiovascular risk. Lowering the prevalence of obesity is the most urgent matter, and is pleiotropic since it affects blood pressure, lipid profiles, glucose metabolism, inflammation, and atherothrombotic disease progression. Physical activity also improves several risk factors, with the additional potential to lower heart rate. Given the current obstacles, success of primordial prevention remains uncertain. At the same time, the consequences of delay and inaction will inevitably be disastrous, and the sense of urgency mounts. Since most CHD events arise in a large subpopulation of low- to moderate-risk individuals, identifying a high proportion of those who will go on to develop events with accuracy remains unlikely. Without a refinement in risk prediction, the current model of targeting high-risk individuals for aggressive therapy may not succeed alone, especially given the rising burden of risk. Estimating cardiovascular risk over a period of 10 years, using scoring systems such as Framingham or SCORE, continues to enjoy widespread use and is recommended for all adults. Limitations in the former have been of concern, including the under- or over-estimation of risk in specific populations, a relatively short 10-year risk horizon, focus on myocardial infarction and CHD death, and exclusion of family history. Classification errors may occur in up to 37% of individuals, particularly women and the young. Several different scoring systems are discussed in this review. The use of lifetime risk is an important conceptual advance, since ≥90% of young adults with a low 10-year risk have a lifetime risk of ≥39%; over half of all American adults have a low 10-year risk but a high lifetime risk. At age 50 the absence of traditional risk factors is associated with extremely low lifetime risk and significantly greater longevity. Pathological and epidemiological data confirm that atherosclerosis begins in early childhood, and advances seamlessly and inexorably throughout life. Risk factors in childhood are similar to those in adults, and track between stages of life. When indicated, aggressive treatment should begin at the earliest indication, and be continued for years. For those patients at intermediate risk according to global risk scores, C-reactive protein (CRP), coronary artery calcium (CAC), and carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) are available for further stratification. Using statins for primary prevention is recommended by guidelines, is prevalent, but remains underprescribed. Statin drugs are unrivaled, evidence-based, major weapons to lower cardiovascular risk. Even when low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets are attained, over half of patients continue to have disease progression and clinical events. This residual risk is of great concern, and multiple sources of remaining risk exist. Though clinical evidence is incomplete, altering or raising the blood high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) level continues to be pursued. Of all agents available, rosuvastatin produces the greatest reduction in LDL-C, LDL-P, and improvement in apoA-I/apoB, together with a favorable safety profile. Several recent proposals and methods to lower cardiovascular risk are reviewed. A combination of approaches, such as the addition of lifetime risk, refinement of risk prediction, guideline compliance, novel treatments, improvement in adherence, and primordial prevention, including environmental and social intervention, will be necessary to lower the present high risk burden.

Distribution of short and lifetime risks for cardiovascular disease in Italians

Background: Guidelines for primary prevention recommend calculation of lifetime risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in addition to short-time risk. We aimed at evaluating the distribution of CVD lifetime risk and the percentage of Italians having low short-term, but high lifetime, risk.

Design: Cross-sectional general population-based cohort study.

Methods: We included 8,403 (46% men) cardiovascular disease-free individuals aged 35–50 years, among those randomly recruited in the framework of the MOLI-SANI cohort. Participants were stratified into three groups: low short-time (10-year) (≤3% and non diabetic)/low lifetime, low short-time/high lifetime, and high short-time risk. Short-time risk was evaluated by the equation provided by the Italian CUORE project. Lifetime risk was evaluated using the algorithm derived from the Framingham cohort.

Results: High short-time risk was prevalent in 16% population (32% of men and 2% of women). Among individuals with low short-time risk, 80% had high lifetime risk (82% men and 78% women). The proportion of individuals with very low lifetime risk due to all optimal risk factors was 4.1% only (1.5% men and 6.3% women).

Conclusions: A large proportion of Italian adults not qualified for CVD primary prevention because of their very low short-time predicted CVD risk, are in fact at high risk to develop a CVD event in their lifetime; therefore population-based approaches should be sought to modify the overall distribution of individual risk factors. These findings offer helpful information for policy makers involved in contrasting the burden of CVD, especially in women and young men.

Arriba: effects of an educational intervention on prescribing behaviour in prevention of CVD in general practice

Background: Evidence on the effectiveness of educational interventions on prescribing behaviour modification in prevention of cardiovascular disease is still insufficient. We evaluated the effects of a brief educational intervention on prescription of hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), inhibitors of platelet aggregation (IPA), and antihypertensive agents (AH).

Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial with continuous medical education (CME) groups of general practitioners (GPs).

Methods: Prescription of statins, IPA, and AH were verified prior to study start (BL), immediately after index consultation (IC), and at follow-up after 6 months (FU). Prescription in patients at high risk (>15% risk of a cardiovascular event in 10 years, based on the Framingham equation) and no prescription in low-risk patients (≤ 15%) were considered appropriate.

Results: An intervention effect on prescribing could only be found for IPA. Generally, changes in prescription over time were all directed towards higher prescription rates and persisted to FU, independent of risk status and group allocation.

Conclusions: The active implementation of a brief evidence-based educational intervention on global risk in CVD did not lead directly to risk-adjusted changes in prescription. Investigations on an extended time scale would capture whether decision support of this kind would improve prescribing risk-adjusted sustainably.

Monitoring in diabetes self-management: issues and recommendations for improvement

The American Association of Diabetes Educators hosted a Monitoring Symposium during which 18 invited participants considered pre-set questions regarding how diabetes education can more effectively address barriers to monitoring for people with diabetes and related conditions. This report provides a summary of the moderated discussion and highlights the key points that apply to diabetes educators and other providers involved with diabetes care. The participating thought leaders reviewed findings from published literature and participated in a moderated discussion with the aim of providing practical advice for health care practitioners regarding monitoring for people with diabetes so that the overall health of this population can be enhanced. The discussants also defined monitoring for diabetes as including that done by the clinician or laboratory, as well as self-monitoring. The discussion was distilled into key points that apply to diabetes educators and other providers involved with diabetes care. Participants developed specific recommendations for a self-monitoring behavior and monitoring framework. People with diabetes benefit from instruction and guidance about self-monitoring and decision making that is based on monitored results and informed interactions with providers. Importantly, collaboration among the entire diabetes care community is needed to ensure that monitoring is performed and utilized to its fullest advantage. Going forward, it will be critical to mitigate barriers to diabetes self-management and training and to identify linkages and partnerships to address barriers to self-monitoring.

Aspirin use in elderly women receiving medication therapy management services

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular disease is the largest single cause of death among women in the US. The American Heart Association guidelines recommend aspirin use in women > or = 65 years of age if blood pressure is controlled and the benefits of cardiovascular risk reduction likely outweigh the risk of bleeding. The objective of this study is to determine the prevalence of aspirin use in elderly women and factors associated with use.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated aspirin use in women aged > or = 65 years based on cardiovascular and gastrointestinal bleeding risk using a medication therapy management database within a large mid-Atlantic managed care organization. Logistic regression was used to analyze patient-related variables associated with aspirin use. Variables included clinical coronary heart disease (CHD), number of CHD risk factors, diabetes diagnosis, number of chronic medications and presence of contraindications to aspirin.

RESULTS

Aspirin use was reported in 50% of patients: 68.0% in the secondary prevention group and 46.3% in the primary prevention group. The percentage of patients using aspirin or with relative aspirin contraindications increased to 84% for the secondary prevention group and 65.9% for the primary prevention group. Patients with clinical CHD and those with diabetes and without clinical CHD were 5.88 (P=0.008) and 7.54 (P=0.012) times more likely to utilize aspirin, respectively, than patients with only one CHD risk factor of age. Patients with relative contraindications to aspirin were less likely to use aspirin (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The high use of aspirin in patients at higher CHD risk supports national recommendations. Clinical practitioners need to carefully assess the value of aspirin in patients at low CHD risk and those 80 years of age and beyond where evidence of benefit should be weighed against risk.