Does Googling lead to statin intolerance?

Chinese Expert Consensus on the Clinical Diagnosis and Management of Statin Intolerance

The clinical benefits of statins have well-established and recognized worldwide. Although statins are well-tolerated generally, however, the report of statin-related adverse event and statin intolerance are common in China, which results in insufficient use of statins and poor adherence. The main reason may be attributed to confusions or misconceptions in the clinical diagnosis and management in China, including the lack of unified definitions and diagnostic standards, broad grasp of diagnosis, and unscientific management strategies. Based on that, this consensus carefully summarized the statin-related gene polymorphism and statin usage issue among Chinese population, and comprehensively reviewed global research data on statin intolerance, referenced guidelines, and consensus literature on statin intolerance in foreign and different regions, proposes an appropriate and easy to implement statin intolerance definition as well as corresponding diagnostic criteria and management strategies for Chinese clinicians, in order to improve the clinical application of statin drugs and enhance the prevention and treatment level of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in China.

Online health information behaviour and its association with statin adherence in patients with high cardiovascular risk: A prospective cohort study

Objective

Statins are effective for preventing cardiovascular disease. However, many patients decide not to take statins because of negative influences, such as online misinformation. Online health information may affect decisions on medication adherence, but measuring it is challenging. This study aimed to examine the associations between online health information behaviour and statin adherence in patients with high cardiovascular risk.

Methods

A prospective cohort study involving 233 patients with high cardiovascular risk was conducted at a primary care clinic in Malaysia. Participants used a digital information diary tool to record online health information they encountered for 2 months and completed a questionnaire about statin necessity, concerns and adherence at the end of the observation period. Data were analysed using structural equation modelling.

Results

The results showed that 55.8% (130 of 233 patients) encountered online health information. Patients who actively sought online health information (91 of 233 patients) had higher concerns about statin use (β = 0.323, p = 0.023). Participants with higher concern about statin use were also more likely to be non-adherent (β = -0.337, p < 0.001). Patients who actively sought online health information were more likely to have lower statin adherence, mediated by higher concerns about statin use (indirect effect, β = -0.109, p = 0.048).

Conclusions

Our results suggest that patients with higher levels of concern about statins may be actively seeking online information about statins, and their concerns might influence how they search, what they find, and the potential to encounter misinformation. Our study highlights the importance of addressing patients' concerns about medications to improve adherence.

Readability and reliability of online patient education materials about statins

Objective

Statins are the cornerstone for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease. Patients often consult online patient education materials (OPEMs) to inform medical decision-making. We therefore aimed to assess the readability and reliability of OPEMs related to statins.

Methods

A total of 17 statin-related terms were queried using an online search engine to identify the top 20 search results for each statin-related term. Each OPEM was then grouped into the following categories based on 2 independent reviewers: government OPEMs (national, state, or local government agencies); healthcare/nonprofit OPEMs (major health systems and nonprofit organizations with a specific cardiovascular health focus); industry/commercial OPEMs (pharmaceutical manufacturers and online pharmacies); lay press OPEMs (healthcare-oriented news organizations); and dictionary/encyclopedia OPEMs. Grade-level readability for each OPEM was calculated using 5 standard readability metrics and compared with AMA-recommended readability recommendations. Reliability of each OPEM was evaluated using the JAMA benchmark criteria for online health information and certification from Health on the Net (HONCode).

Results

A total of 340 websites were identified across the 17 statin search terms. There were 211 statin OPEMs after excluding non-OPEM results; 172 OPEMs had unique content. Statin OPEM readability exceeded the recommended 6th grade AMA reading level (average reading grade level of 10.9). The average JAMA benchmark criteria score was 2.13 (on a scale of 0-4, with higher scores indicating higher reliability), and only 60% of statin OPEMs were HONCode-certified. There was an inverse association between readability and reliability. The most readable results were from industry and commercial sources, while the most reliable sites were from lay press sources.

Conclusions

Statin OPEMs are written at an overall averaging reading grade level of 10.9. There was an inverse association between readability and reliability. Lack of accessible, high-quality online health information may contribute to statin nonadherence.

Quality Assessment of Online Resources for Gender-affirming Surgery

Background

As visibility of the transgender patient population and utilization of online resources increases, it is imperative that web-based gender-affirming surgery (GAS) materials for patients are readable, accessible, and of high quality.

Methods

A search trends analysis was performed to determine frequency of GAS-related searches over time. The top 100 most common results for GAS-related terms were analyzed using six readability formulas. Accessibility of patient-facing GAS sources was determined by categorizing types of search results. Frequency of article types was compared in low- and high-population dense areas. Quality was assigned to GAS web-based sources using the DISCERN score.

Results

Search engine trend data demonstrates increasing occurrence of searches related to GAS. Readability scores of the top 100 online sources for GAS were discovered to exceed recommended levels for patient proficiency. Availability of patient-facing online information related to GAS was found to be 60%, followed by information provided by insurance companies (17%). Differences in availability of online resources in varying dense cities were found to be minimal. The average quality of sources determined by the DISCERN score was found to be 3, indicating "potential important shortcomings."

Conclusions

Despite increasing demand for web-based GAS information, the readability of online resources related to GAS was found to be significantly greater than the grade level of proficiency recommended for patients. A high number of nonpatient-facing search results appear in response to GAS search terms. Quality sources are still difficult for patients to find, as search results have a high incidence of low-quality resources.

Management of patients with statin intolerance

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, and statins have become a cornerstone in its treatment and prevention. Despite the well-documented benefits of statins, many patients stop taking them, with adverse muscle symptoms being a commonly cited reason. Although some statin-associated adverse muscle effects are real, some can be attributed to the nocebo effect, which is the patient's perception of harm. The purpose of this article is to review the literature on statin safety, particularly that related to muscle, to analyze adverse effects, and to propose various treatment strategies for the statin intolerant patient.

Low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol lowering effect of a nutraceutical regimen with or without ezetimibe in hypercholesterolaemic patients with statin intolerance

Background

Statins are the most widely prescribed medication to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c). However, a significant portion of patients are unable to tolerate them due to side effects, most commonly muscle related. Nutraceuticals, natural plant derivatives with lipid-lowering properties, may provide an alternative to lower LDL-c in these patients.

Aims

To investigate whether a nutraceutical regimen, either alone or in combination with ezetimibe, can lower LDL-c in patients with hypercholesterolemia who are intolerant to statins.

Methods

Participants were recruited into a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled intervention study. Treatments were (i) placebo, (ii) nutraceutical (500 mg berberine, 200 mg red yeast rice (RYR), 2 g plant sterols)/daily, (iii) ezetimibe (10 mg)/daily, or (iv) the combination of nutraceutical and ezetimibe/daily. At baseline and week 8, all participants provide a fasting blood sample for assessment of lipid profile and safety bloods.

Results

Fifty participants were randomized, with 44 completing the treatment period. Following adjustment for baseline levels and compared with placebo, LDL-c was significantly reduced (all p < 0.0001) with ezetimibe (-1.02 mmol/L), nutraceutical (-1.15 mmol/L) and the nutraceutical and ezetimibe combination (-1.92 mmol/L). Non-HDL cholesterol was significantly reduced (all p < 0.0001) with ezetimibe (-1.29 mmol/L), nutraceutical (-1.37 mmol/L) and the nutraceutical and ezetimibe combination (-2.18 mmol/L). Remnant cholesterol and triglycerides was significantly reduced with the nutraceutical and ezetimibe combination (p = 0.018).

Conclusion

A nutraceutical regimen (berberine, RYR and plant sterols) and ezetimibe independently and additively lower LDL-c in patients with hypercholesterolemia who are intolerant to statins.

Unethical informed consent caused by overlooking poorly measured nocebo effects

Unlike its friendly cousin the placebo effect, the nocebo effect (the effect of expecting a negative outcome) has been almost ignored. Epistemic and ethical confusions related to its existence have gone all but unnoticed. Contrary to what is often asserted, adverse events following from taking placebo interventions are not necessarily nocebo effects; they could have arisen due to natural history. Meanwhile, ethical informed consent (in clinical trials and clinical practice) has centred almost exclusively on the need to inform patients about intervention risks with patients to preserve their autonomy. Researchers have failed to consider the harm caused by the way in which the information is conveyed. In this paper, I argue that the magnitude of nocebo effects must be measured using control groups consisting of untreated patients. And, because the nocebo effect can produce harm, the principle of non-maleficence must be taken into account alongside autonomy when obtaining (ethical) informed consent and communicating intervention risks with patients.

The Nocebo Effect: A Review of Contemporary Experimental Research

BACKGROUND

Nocebo effect, the occurrence of adverse symptoms fallowing an inactive treatment, is much less understood than its opposite, placebo effect. This systematic review of contemporary studies exploring the nocebo effect focuses on (1) the mechanisms underlying the nocebo effect, (2) the characteristics of participants exhibiting a more intensive nocebo response, and (3) the circumstances that might reduce or prevent the nocebo effect.

METHOD

We included experimental nocebo studies published in English that examined the occurrence of nocebo in various domains (i.e., types of sensations and symptoms) and different levels of nocebo response (e.g., performance, self-assessment) and in different populations of participants (healthy and clinical). Using Web of Science, PsycInfo and PubMed, we identified 25 papers (35 studies) that met our criteria with a total of N = 2614 participants, mostly healthy volunteers.

RESULTS

Nocebo was invoked by manipulating expectations, conditioning or both. A narrative content synthesis was conducted. Nocebo was successfully invoked in a range of domains (e.g., pain, nausea, itch, skin dryness) and levels (sensory, affective, psychological, and behavioral). Various characteristics of the conditioning procedure and participants' emotions, expectations, and dispositions are found to be related to the nocebo response, which sheds insight into the possible mechanisms of the nocebo effect. Strategies successful and unsuccessful in diminishing the nocebo response are identified. Limitations of this review include a small sample of studies.

CONCLUSION

These findings point to the universality of nocebo as well as to the importance of participant characteristics and experimental circumstances in invoking the nocebo effect. Further research should examine the nocebo effect in clinical populations.

Outcome Goals and Health Care Preferences of Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions

IMPORTANCE

Older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) vary in their health outcome goals and the health care that they prefer to receive to achieve these goals.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the outcome goals and health care preferences of this population with MCCs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study included participants in the Patient Priorities Care study who underwent health priorities identification from February 1, 2017, to August 31, 2018, in a primary care practice. Patients eligible to participate were 65 years or older, English speaking, and had at least 3 chronic conditions; in addition, they used at least 10 medications, saw at least 2 specialists, or had at least 2 emergency department visits or 1 hospitalization during the past year. Of 236 eligible patients, 163 (69%) agreed to participate in this study. Data were analyzed from August 1 to October 31, 2020.

EXPOSURES

Guided by facilitators, participants identified their core values, as many as 3 actionable and realistic outcome goals, health-related barriers to these goals, and as many as 3 helpful and 3 bothersome health care activities.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Frequencies were ascertained for outcome goals and health care preferences. Preferences included health care activities (medications, health care visits, procedures, diagnostic tests, and self-management) reported as either helpful or bothersome.

RESULTS

Most of the 163 participants were White (158 [96.9%]) and women (109 [66.9%]), with a mean (SD) age of 77.6 (7.6) years. Of 459 goals, the most common encompassed meals and other activities with family and friends (111 [24.2%]), shopping (28 [6.1%]), and exercising (21 [4.6%]). Twenty individuals (12.3%) desired to live independently without specifying necessary activities. Of 312 barriers identified, the most common were pain (128 [41.0%]), fatigue (45 [14.4%]), unsteadiness (42 [13.5%]), and dyspnea (19 [6.1%]). Similar proportions of patients identified at least 1 medication that was helpful (130 [79.8%]) or bothersome (128 [78.5%]). Medications most commonly cited as helpful were pain medications, including nonopiods (36 of 55 users [65.5%]) and opioids (15 of 27 users [55.6%]); sleep medications (27 of 51 users [52.9%]); and respiratory inhalants (19 of 45 [42.2%]). Most often mentioned as bothersome were statins (25 of 97 users [25.8%]) and antidepressants (13 of 40 users [32.5%]). Thirty-two participants (19.6%) reported using too many medications. Health care visits were identified as helpful by 43 participants (26.4%); 15 (9.2%) reported too many visits. Procedures were named helpful by 38 participants (23.3%); 24 (14.7%) cited unwanted procedures. Among 48 participants with diabetes, monitoring of glucose levels was doable for 18 (37.5%) and too bothersome for 9 (18.8%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Participants identified realistic and actionable goals while varying in health care activities deemed helpful or bothersome. The goals and health care preferences of more diverse populations must be explored. Previous work suggests that clinicians can use this information in decision-making.

Examining the Nocebo Effect of Statins Through Statin Adverse Events Reported in the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate whether the high frequency of reported statin adverse effects (AEs) may be associated with the nocebo effect. We compared nocebo-related subjective AEs with objective AEs and investigated factors potentially associated with the nocebo effect.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System between January 2010 and December 2019 for statins, including, atorvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin. Subjective AEs included fatigue, subjective muscular, and nervous system AEs. Objective AEs were defined as hepatic and objective muscular AEs. We compared the number of subjective and objective AEs using the Mann-Whitney U test and examined trends in the frequency of subjective versus objective reports over time using linear regression with interaction terms. We evaluated the association between AEs and gender and country using linear regression. Quantitative detection of signals was estimated using proportional reporting ratio and reporting odds ratio for simvastatin.

RESULTS

Of 2 994 487 overall AE reports, more subjective than objective AEs were reported per quarter (mean±SD: 4777±1375.45 versus 999±276.95; P<0.0001), and over time during the study period (P<0.001). Women reported more subjective AEs than men per quarter (fatigue: 86.98 more per quarter, P=0.035; subjective muscular AE: 417.95, P<0.0001; nervous system AE: 273.60, P<0.0001), but fewer objective muscular AEs (-125.23 per quarter, P<0.0001). More subjective AEs and fewer objective AEs were reported per quarter in the United States relative to other countries. Simvastatin-associated reports showed signals for higher objective muscular AEs relative to all other statins (reporting odds ratio, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.49-1.58]).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that significantly more subjective than objective AEs are reported for statins. Subjective statin AEs, potentially related to the nocebo effect are reported more often by women than by men, and in the United States than in other countries.

Nocebo effect and biosimilars in inflammatory bowel diseases: what's new and what's next?

INTRODUCTION

The use of biosimilars for the treatment of patients with chronic inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) showed to be a valid strategy to reduce the economic burden of biologics on health-care costs and to increase patient access to treatment. However, the nocebo effect constitutes an important limitation to the wide use of biosimilars.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a literature overview to summarize information on nocebo effect in IBD population and to provide physicians with practical key strategies to prevent the nocebo effect in daily clinical practice and to improve patients' outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the proven efficacy and safety of biosimilars, further clinical studies are needed to define the effects of reverse and multiple switches in the management of patients with IBD. The development of new subcutaneous formulations, better accepted by patients, could contribute to reduce patients' negative expectations, and limit the nocebo effect.

Quantitative evaluation of statin effectiveness versus intolerance and strategies for management of intolerance

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is disquiet about statin effectiveness and side effects in both the medical and lay media.

METHODS

We searched the literature for reports on the incidence of statin intolerance (SI) in which control rates of similar events were also recorded. The number of people who must receive treatment (NNT) to prevent one atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) event at 5-50% 10-year risk and LDL cholesterol 2-7 mmol/l was compared with the number of those who would experience harm attributable to statin (NNH). Using a similar method, the effectiveness of various strategies to overcome SI in preventing CVD was then compared.

RESULTS

Observational studies with non-randomised control groups report higher rates of statin adverse events than randomised trials. Overall, at least 75 patients must be treated for one to experience a side effect. In contrast, the NNT to prevent one ASCVD event with statins as monotherapy or in combination with other cholesterol-lowering medications to achieve at least 50% decrease in LDL cholesterol and <1.8 mmol/l was between 3 and 61, depending on risk and LDL cholesterol. NNH for adverse events of severity equivalent to ASCVD was >750 (<0.1333%). When SI is encountered, the most effective current management for most patients in terms of ASCVD reduction is to rechallenge with low dose potent statin and then up-titrate until the cholesterol target has been achieved with, if necessary, the addition of ezetimibe 10 mg daily.

CONCLUSIONS

The most severe complication of SI is discontinuation of effective cholesterol-lowering treatment in patients who, by virtue of their CVD risk and cholesterol level, might otherwise benefit.

Statins in a Distorted Mirror of Media

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Statins have proven efficacy with a favorable safety profile yet, despite being widely affordable, remain profoundly underutilized. Statins have acquired a bad reputation, which is likely contributing to high rates of nonadherence and discontinuation. The degree to which negative media perceptions contribute to underutilization is unclear.

RECENT FINDINGS

The media has a key role in informing discussion on the public agenda but also on how issues are framed. In this context, the majority of studies evaluating news coverage suggest that the content on statins is predominantly negative and focused on potential harm. Studies utilizing quasi-experimental and interrupted time series design have shown periods of negative news stories on statins in multiple countries are associated with (a) less statin commencement in eligible patients, (b) high rates of discontinuation, and (c) poor long-term adherence. This review highlights the deleterious impact of negative media coverage on statin utilization through misattribution of muscle complaints and the nocebo effect. Academia must work with the media to harmonize the public health messaging; however, individual physicians have a critical role in mitigating a harmful narrative of misinformation and actively discredit malinformation.

Statin Toxicity

There is now overwhelming evidence to support lowering LDL-c (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Statins are a class of drugs frequently prescribed to lower cholesterol. However, in spite of their wide-spread use, discontinuation and nonadherence remains a major gap in both the primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The major reason for statin discontinuation is because of the development of statin-associated muscle symptoms, but a range of other statin-induced side effects also exist. Although the mechanisms behind these side effects have not been fully elucidated, there is an urgent need to identify those at increased risk of developing side effects as well as provide alternative treatment strategies. In this article, we review the mechanisms and clinical importance of statin toxicity and focus on the evaluation and management of statin-associated muscle symptoms.

Nocebos in rheumatology: emerging concepts and their implications for clinical practice

Nocebo effects are noxious reactions to therapeutic interventions that occur because of negative expectations of the patient. In the past decade, neurobiological data have revealed specific neural pathways induced by nocebos (that is, interventions that cause nocebo effects), as well as the associated mechanisms and predisposing factors of nocebo effects. Epidemiological data suggest that nocebos can have a notable effect on medication adherence, clinical outcomes and health-care policy. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) indicate that withdrawal of treatment by placebo-arm participants owing to adverse events is common; a proportion of these events could be nocebo effects. Moreover, in large-scale, open-label studies of patients with RMDs who transition from bio-originator to biosimilar therapeutics, biosimilar retention rates were much lower than in previous double-blind switch RCTs. This discrepancy suggests that in addition to the lack of response in some patients because of intrinsic differences between the drugs, nocebos might have an important role in low biosimilar retention, thus increasing the need for awareness and early identification of nocebo effects by rheumatologists and allied health-care professionals.

OK Computer? A Time Analysis of Google Searches About Symptoms

Google searches are now a popular way for individuals to seek information about the significance of common symptoms and whether they should seek medical assistance. As analysis of search patterns may help understand the demand for medical care, we examined what times over a 24-hour period and on what days of the week people searched Google for information about common symptoms.

We analysed Google searches for symptoms in the United Kingdom during the week from July 30 to August 5, 2018 using Google Trends. We recorded the time points with the highest search volume for 50 common symptoms relative to other searches, and the day of the week with the highest search peak for each particular symptom.

All of the peak searches for the symptoms we examined occurred during the night between 10pm and 8am. The majority 32/50 (64%) occurred between 3am to 6am with 12/50 (24%) between midnight and 3am. Most symptom searches were more common during the week and lowest during the weekend. Typically, searches for a particular symptom peaked at a similar time each night over the week.

Searches for symptoms are significantly more common during night-time hours, and particularly between 3 and 6am. Symptom searches show relatively stable diurnal and weekly patterns.

Google searches for health information are common and individuals regularly search for their specific symptoms before deciding whether to seek medical care.

Searches for common symptoms are significantly more likely to occur, relative to other searches, during the night-time hours and are highest during the working week and lowest at weekends.

The majority of symptom searches show relatively stable diurnal and weekly patterns.

Formal comment on "Systematic review of the predictors of statin adherence for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease"

Statins have been prescribed for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) for nearly 3 decades. Throughout this period key opinion leaders in the field have been dismayed by the high rate of non-adherence of patients to follow their statin regimen. Hope et al., [1] have addressed this issue by providing a systematic review of research on predictors of statin adherence for primary prevention of CVD. However, their review does not address the ongoing debate as to whether statin treatment is warranted for primary prevention of CVD, nor does it adequately address concerns regarding adverse effects of statins. We have therefore written a commentary which provides a broader perspective on the benefits versus harms of statin therapy. Our perspective of the literature is that non-adherence to statin treatment for primary prevention of CVD is justified because the meager benefits are more than offset by the extensive harms.

The nocebo effect as a source of bias in the assessment of treatment effects

The term nocebo effect refers to the harmful outcomes that result from people’s negative beliefs, anticipations, or experiences related to the treatment rather than the pharmacological properties of the treatment. These outcomes may include a worsening of symptoms, a lack of expected improvement, or adverse events, and they may occur after the active treatment and the placebo that is supposed to imitate it.  The nocebo effect is always unwanted and may distort estimates of treatment effectiveness and safety; moreover, it may cause discontinuation of therapy or withdrawal from a trial.

The nocebo effect may be unintentionally evoked by the explanations given by healthcare professionals during a clinical consultation or consent procedures, or by information from other patients, the media, or the Internet. Moreover, it may be a consequence of previous bad experiences with the treatment, through learning and conditioning, and the conditioning may happen without patients’ conscious awareness. In trial settings, a study design, for example lack of blinding, may introduce bias from the nocebo effect.

Unlike the placebo effect, which is usually taken into consideration while interpreting treatment outcomes and controlled for in clinical trials, the nocebo effect is under-recognised by clinical researchers and clinicians. This is worrying, because the nocebo phenomenon is common and may have potentially negative consequences for the results of clinical treatment and trials. It is therefore important that doctors and medical researchers consider any potential nocebo effect while assessing the treatment effect and try to minimise it through careful choice and phrasing of treatment-related information given to patients.

Placebos and the Placebo Effect in Drug Trials

In this review, we explored different ways of controlling the placebo effects in clinical trials and described various factors that may increase/decrease the placebo effect in randomized placebo-controlled trials. These factors can be subdivided into four groups, and while not all factors are effective in every study and under all clinical conditions, they show on the whole that - even under the ideal condition of drug therapy, where blinded placebo provision is much easier and warranted than in, e.g., psychotherapy - many factors need to be controlled to ascertain that the goal of the clinical trials, fair assessment of superiority of the drug over placebo in placebo-controlled trials and fair assessment of non-inferiority of the drug compared to another drug in comparator trials, is reached. Ignorance towards the placebo effect, which was common in the past, is no longer acceptable; instead, it should be the goal of all therapeutic trials to minimize the placebo effect in clinical trials, while utilizing and maximizing it in clinical routine.