Patient Preference Distribution for Use of Statin Therapy

Clinician use of the Statin Choice Shared Decision-making Encounter Tool in a Major Health System

BACKGROUND

Effective shared decision-making (SDM) tools for use during clinical encounters are available, but, outside of study settings, little is known about clinician use of these tools in practice.

OBJECTIVE

To describe real-world use of an SDM encounter tool for statin prescribing, Statin Choice, embedded into the workflow of an electronic health record.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

Clinicians and their statin-eligible patients who had outpatient encounters between January 2020 and June 2021 in Cleveland Clinic Health System.

MAIN MEASURES

Clinician use of Statin Choice was recorded within the Epic record system. We categorized each patient's 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk into low (< 5%), borderline (5-7.5%), intermediate (7.5-20%), and high (≥ 20%). Other patient factors included age, sex, insurance, and race. We used mixed effects logistic regression to assess the odds of using Statin Choice for statin-eligible patients, accounting for clustering by clinician and site. We generated a residual intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to characterize the impact of the clinician on Statin Choice use.

KEY RESULTS

Statin Choice was used in 7% of 68,505 eligible patients. Of 1047 clinicians, 48% used Statin Choice with ≥ 1 patient, and these clinicians used it with a median 9% of their patients (interquartile range: 3-22%). In the mixed effects logistic regression model, patient age (adjusted OR per year: 1.04; 95%CI 1.03-1.04) and 10-year ASVCD risk (aOR for 5-7.5% versus < 5% risk: 1.28; 95%CI: 1.14-1.44) were associated with use of Statin Choice. Black versus White race was associated with a lower odds of Statin Choice use (aOR: 0.83; 95%CI: 0.73-0.95), as was female versus male sex (aOR: 0.83; 95%CI: 0.76-0.90). The model ICC demonstrated that 53% of the variation in use of Statin Choice was clinician-driven.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient factors, including race and sex, were associated with clinician use of Statin Choice; half the variation in use was attributable to individual clinicians.

First Iranian guidelines for the diagnosis, management, and treatment of hyperlipidemia in adults

This guideline is the first Iranian guideline developed for the diagnosis, management, and treatment of hyperlipidemia in adults. The members of the guideline developing group (GDG) selected 9 relevant clinical questions and provided recommendations or suggestions to answer them based on the latest scientific evidence. Recommendations include the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) threshold for starting drug treatment in adults lacking comorbidities was determined to be over 190 mg/dL and the triglyceride (TG) threshold had to be >500 mg/dl. In addition to perform fasting lipid profile tests at the beginning and continuation of treatment, while it was suggested to perform cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) risk assessment using valid Iranian models. Some recommendations were also provided on lifestyle modification as the first therapeutic intervention. Statins were recommended as the first line of drug treatment to reduce LDL-C, and if its level was high despite the maximum allowed or maximum tolerated drug treatment, combined treatment with ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, or bile acid sequestrants was suggested. In adults with hypertriglyceridemia, pharmacotherapy with statin or fibrate was recommended. The target of drug therapy in adults with increased LDL-C without comorbidities and risk factors was considered an LDL-C level of <130 mg/dl, and in adults with increased TG without comorbidities and risk factors, TG levels of <200 mg/dl. In this guideline, specific recommendations and suggestions were provided for the subgroups of the general population, such as those with CVD, stroke, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, elderly, and women.

Using Patient Decision Aids for Cardiology Care in Diverse Populations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patient decision aids (PDAs) are tools that help guide treatment decisions and support shared decision-making when there is equipoise between treatment options. This review focuses on decision aids that are available to support cardiac treatment options for underrepresented groups.

RECENT FINDINGS

PDAs have been developed to support multiple treatment decisions in cardiology related to coronary artery disease, valvular heart disease, cardiac arrhythmias, heart failure, and cholesterol management. By considering the unique needs and preferences of diverse populations, PDAs can enhance patient engagement and promote equitable healthcare delivery in cardiology. In this review, we examine the benefits, challenges, and current trends in implementing PDAs, with a focus on improving decision-making processes and outcomes for patients from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. In addition, the article highlights key considerations when implementing PDAs and potential future directions in the field.

Public experience with and perspectives on medical care provided by PAs

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess public experiences with and perspectives about physician associates/assistants (PAs), who are taking on increasingly important roles in healthcare.

METHODS

We conducted a survey using a Qualtrics panel assessing whether participants (N = 1,388) received care from PAs, their perceptions of the care received, and their intentions of seeking care from PAs in the future.

RESULTS

About 67% of participants reported receiving care from PAs; 61.7% believed PAs have more time to communicate with patients. Most respondents were satisfied with the care received, said they were likely to see a PA again, and recommended PAs. Of those not treated by PAs, 30.6% were willing to receive care from PAs, 43.8% were willing to receive care from PAs for minor medical needs, 21.3% were unsure, and 4.3% were unwilling. Older participants and those with more education had consistently more favorable views.

CONCLUSIONS

Public experiences with and perceptions of PAs are positive. Future research should employ longitudinal designs to assess trends as the PA workforce continues to grow.

US practice adoption of patient-engagement strategies and spending for adults with diabetes and cardiovascular disease

Patient-engagement strategies are being encouraged by payers and governments, but with limited evidence about whether practice adoption of these strategies impacts utilization and spending. We examine the association of physician practice adoption of patient-engagement strategies (low vs moderate vs high) with potentially preventable utilization and total spending for patients with type 2 diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease using US physician practice survey (n = 2086) and Medicare fee-for-service (n = 736 269) data. In adjusted analyses, there were no differences in potentially preventable utilization associated with practice adoption of patient-engagement strategies. Compared with patients attributed to practices with moderate adoption, patients attributed to practices with high adoption had higher total spending ($26 364 vs $25 991; P < .05) driven by spending for long-term services and supports, including home health agency, long-term care, skilled nursing facilities, and hospice payments. In contrast, patients attributed to practices with low adoption had higher total spending ($26 481 vs $25 991; P < .01) driven by spending for tests and acute care and clinical access spending. The results highlight that stakeholders that encourage the use of patient-engagement strategies should not necessarily expect reduced spending.

Predictors of Informed People's Preferences for Statin Therapy to Reduce Cardiovascular Disease Risk: an Internet Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines suggest clinicians inform patients about their 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk; however, little is known about how the risk estimate influences patients' preferences for statin therapy for primary prevention.

OBJECTIVE

To define predictors of preference for statin therapy after participants were informed about their individualized benefits and harms.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey in 2020.

SETTING

Online US survey panel.

PARTICIPANTS

A national sample of 304 respondents aged 40 to 75 who had not previously taken a statin and who knew their cholesterol levels and blood pressure measurements.

INTERVENTION

Participants entered their risk factors into a calculator which estimated their 10-year CVD risk. They were then provided with an estimate of their absolute risk reduction with a statin and the chance of side effects from meta-analyses.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

We used a hierarchical model to predict participants' preferences for statin therapy according to their 10-year CVD risk, perceptions of the magnitude of statin benefit (large, medium, small, or almost no benefit), worry about side effects (very worried, somewhat worried, a little worried, not worried at all), and other variables.

KEY RESULTS

Participants had a mean age of 55 years (SD = 9.9); 50% were female, 44% were non-white, and 16% had a high school degree or less education. After reviewing their benefits and side effects, 45% of the participants reported they probably or definitely wanted to take a statin. In the full hierarchical model, only perceived benefits of taking a statin was a significant independent predictor of wanting a statin (OR 7.3, 95% CI 4.7, 12.2).

LIMITATIONS

Participants were from an internet survey panel and making hypothetical decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants' perceptions of their benefit from statin therapy predicted wanting to take a statin for primary prevention; neither estimated CVD risk nor worries about statin side effects were independent predictors.

Rating the importance of outcomes from diabetes trials. A survey of patients' and doctors' opinions

Purpose

To investigate and compare how patients with diabetes mellitus and doctors rate the importance of outcomes used as part of composite endpoints in clinical diabetes trials. Secondly, to compare the ratings of outcomes between patients with low and high education.

Methods

Using a pre-piloted questionnaire, patients with diabetes and doctors working with diabetes were asked to rate the importance of 36 different outcomes commonly used in trials assessing intervention effects in patients with diabetes. The respondents were asked to rate individual outcomes as being either critical, of major importance, of moderate importance, or of minor importance.

Results

The study population consisted of 139 patients with a mean age of 56.6 years and an average duration of diabetes for 13.6 years and 45 doctors with a mean time of practice of 19.6 years. There was no difference between patients' and doctors' rating of risk of mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, and percutaneous coronary intervention (all p-values > 0.34). Non-fatal stroke, admission for heart failure or angina was perceived more severely by patients compared to doctors (all p-values < 0.03). Patients rated risk of foot-ulcers, amputations and quality of life as more important compared to doctors (p-values < 0.01).

Conclusion

The current study suggest that patients and doctors weigh some diabetic outcomes used as part of composite endpoints in clinical diabetes trials differently. These findings call for more studies on patient reported outcomes and patient education for improved personal care.

Highlights

• We performed this study to assess how patients and practicing physicians rate the importance of outcomes commonly used in diabetes trials.• We found that patients and doctors rate the importance of some outcomes used in clinical diabetes trials differently.• These findings suggest that shared decision making is pivotal when taking clinical decisions and that future diabetes studies incorporate end points relevant to both patients and clinicians and do not combine end points which are not equally important.