The care gap: underuse of statin therapy in the elderly

Under‐prescription of medications in older adults according to START criteria: A cross‐sectional study in Lebanon

Background and Aims

Under‐prescription is defined as the exclusion of medications indicated for the treatment of certain conditions without any rationale for not prescribing them. The under‐prescription of medications is highly prevalent among older adults (≥65 years) receiving polypharmacy. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of the under‐prescription of medications using the Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment (START) criteria version 2 and to identify the predictors of having potential prescribing omissions (PPOs).

Methods

This cross‐sectional, face‐to‐face interview study was carried out between September 2021 and February 2022. The study comprised community‐dwelling older adults taking at least one medication on a regular basis. The study questionnaire included the patients' demographics, clinical data, and comorbidities. PPOs were identified using the START criteria. The χ² test was used to assess the association between under‐prescription of medication and the demographic/clinical variables. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to explore factors associated with under‐prescription of medications as the dependent variable and taking all variables that showed a p < 0.05 in the bivariate analysis as independent.

Results

A total of 444 older adults agreed to participate in this study. The mean age of participants was 71 ± 8.6; the majority of them, 305 (68.7%), were men. Polypharmacy was present in 261 patients (58.8%) and underprescribing of medications in 260 patients (58.6%). The highest percentage of under‐prescribing of medications was reported with statins in 115 patients (44.2%) followed by aspirin in 93 (35.7%), and angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors in 61 (23.4%). The results of the multivariable analysis showed that patients with underprescribed medications had higher odds of polypharmacy (odds ratio [OR]: 2.015, confidence interval [CI] 95% 1.362–2.980, p < 0.001) and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR 2.807, CI 95% 1.463–5.85, p = 0.02).

Conclusion

The present findings highlight that PPOs are highly prevalent among community‐dwelling older adults in Lebanon. Multimorbidity and polypharmacy were the identified predictors for under‐prescription of medications in this population.

Laboratory reporting of framingham risk score increases statin prescriptions in at-risk patients

BACKGROUND

The under-utilization of cardiovascular preventative therapy with statins warrants novel interventions to optimize prescriptions in at-risk patients. We investigated the role of a laboratory generated Framingham Risk Score (FRS) provided to primary care clinicians in changing statin use in a primary care setting.

METHODS

Data was acquired from the electronic medical records of 1573 anonymized patients undergoing routine lipid testing. Follow-up statin use and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were obtained for 2 years post intervention. FRS parameters were entered into a laboratory information system, and provided to ordering physicians along with the cholesterol profile and the appropriate current Canadian Dyslipidemia treatment recommendation in a single report. Statin prescription rates following the intervention were compared with historical use 6 months prior to the study.

RESULTS

A total of 1283 participants (mean age of 60 ± 11 years) had an FRS report and were considered for analysis. Two hundred individuals filled a statin prescription in the 6 months prior to their index lipid test, and an additional 84 filled a statin prescription following the intervention (42% increase). The relative and absolute increase in statin prescription was 47.3% and 13.6% in the high-risk group p < 0.001, 53.3% and 8.1% in the intermediate-risk group p < 0.001, and 17.0% and 1.42% in the low-risk group p = 0.008, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The use of the laboratory reported FRS was associated with a significant increase in the rate of statin prescription across all risk groups. The expansion of FRS reporting across other health regions would improve cardiovascular risk prevention.

Early efficacy and safety of statin therapy in Korean patients with hypercholesterolemia: Daegu and Gyeongbuk Statin Registry

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To date, prospective data are limited on efficacy and safety profiles of statin therapy in Korean hypercholesterolemic patients. Hence, the aim of this study was to evaluate the practice patterns of statin therapy and its efficacy and safety through the prospective Daegu and Gyeongbuk statin registry.

METHODS

Statin naïve patients who were prescribed statins according to the criteria of Korean Guidelines for Management of Dyslipidemia were enrolled. Clinical and laboratory evaluations were performed at baseline and at week 8, where the efficacy was assessed with the same guidelines.

RESULTS

Of 908 patients, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin were most frequently prescribed statins (63.1% and 29.3%, respectively). High intensity statins (atorvastatin 40 mg or rosuvastatin 20 mg) were prescribed in 24.7% of all patients and in 79.5% of high and very high risk groups. The total and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels decreased from 203.7 ± 43.0 to 140.6 ± 28.6 mg/dL and 134.4 ± 35.7 to 79.5 ± 21.3 mg/dL, respectively. The achievement rate of the LDL target goal was 98.6% in low risk, 95.0% in moderate risk, 88.1% in high risk, and 42.1% in very high risk patients (59.7% in overall). There was no significant difference in the efficacy between atorvastatin and rosuvastatin. Adverse events were observed in 12.0% of patients and led to 1.4% of treatment cessation.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of the usual starting dose of statins in daily practice was relatively insufficient for Korean hypercholesterolemic patients with high or very high risks. Short-term adverse events of statin therapy were not common in Korean patients with a low discontinuation rate.

Current drug treatment of hyperlipidemia in older adults

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains the leading cause of death, especially in older adults. Managing modifiable risk factors (e.g., hyperlipidemia, hypertension) remains the primary approach to prevent ASCVD events and ASCVD-related mortality. Statins are generally considered one of the most effective approaches to reduce ASCVD risk, especially for secondary prevention, yet remain underutilized in older adults. The evidence to support statin therapy in older adults is less robust than in their younger counterparts, especially in individuals aged 75 years and older. Recent lipid guidelines have raised this concern, yet statin therapy is recommended in 'at risk' older adults. Determining which older adults should receive statin therapy for primary prevention of ASCVD is challenging, as the currently available risk estimation tools are of limited use in those aged over 75 years. Furthermore, non-statin therapies have been de-emphasized in recent clinical practice guidelines and remain understudied in the older adult population. This is unfortunate given that older adults are less likely to tolerate moderate- to high-intensity statins. Non-statin therapies could be viable options in this population if more was understood about their ability to lower ASCVD risk and safety profiles. Nevertheless, lipid-lowering agents remain an integral component of the overall strategy to reduce atherogenic burden in older adults. Future research in this area should aim to enroll more older adults in clinical trials, determine the utility of ASCVD risk estimation for primary prevention, and investigate the role of non-statin therapies in this population.

Medication Underuse in Aging Outpatients with Cardiovascular Disease: Prevalence, Determinants, and Outcomes in a Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death in older people, and the impact of being exposed or not exposed to preventive cardiovascular medicines is accordingly high. Underutilization of beneficial drugs is common, but prevalence estimates differ across settings, knowledge on predictors is limited, and clinical consequences are rarely investigated.

METHODS

Using data from a prospective population-based cohort study, we assessed the prevalence, determinants, and outcomes of medication underuse based on cardiovascular criteria from Screening Tool To Alert to Right Treatment (START).

RESULTS

Medication underuse was present in 69.1% of 1454 included participants (mean age 71.1 ± 6.1 years) and was significantly associated with frailty (odds ratio: 2.11 [95% confidence interval: 1.24-3.63]), body mass index (1.03 [1.01-1.07] per kg/m2), and inversely with the number of prescribed drugs (0.84 [0.79-0.88] per drug). Using this information for adjustment in a follow-up evaluation (mean follow-up time 2.24 years) on cardiovascular and competing outcomes, we found no association of medication underuse with cardiovascular events (fatal and non-fatal) (hazard ratio: 1.00 [0.65-1.56]), but observed a significant association of medication underuse with competing deaths from non-cardiovascular causes (2.52 [1.01-6.30]).

CONCLUSION

Medication underuse was associated with frailty and adverse non-cardiovascular clinical outcomes. This may suggest that cardiovascular drugs were withheld because of serious co-morbidity or that concurrent illness can preclude benefit from cardiovascular prevention. In the latter case, adapted prescribing criteria should be developed and evaluated in those patients.

Factors associated with statin treatment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in people within 2 years following diagnosis of diabetes in Scotland, 2006-2008

AIM

To describe characteristics associated with statin prescribing for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in people with newly diagnosed diabetes.

METHODS

Data from the Scottish Care Information-Diabetes Collaboration data set for 2006-2008 were used. This data set contains socio-demographic and prescribing data for over 99% of people with diagnosed diabetes in Scotland. Analyses were conducted on people aged over 40 years diagnosed with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes between 2006 and 2008 with complete data and no previous history of cardiovascular or statin prescription. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios for statin prescription in the 2 years following diagnosis of diabetes.

RESULTS

There were 7157 men and 5601 women who met the inclusion criteria, 68% of whom had a statin prescription recorded in the 2 years following diagnosis of diabetes. The proportions receiving statins were lower above 65 years of age in men and 75 years of age in women. People with Type 1 diabetes had lower odds of receiving statins than people with Type 2 diabetes [odds ratio (95% CI) 0.42 (0.29-0.61) for men and 0.48 (0.28-0.81) for women, after adjustment for age, BMI, smoking status, cholesterol level and deprivation]. Higher total cholesterol, BMI and being a current smoker were associated with greater odds of statin prescription.

CONCLUSION

Approximately one third of the study population had no record of statin prescription during the 2 years after diagnosis of diabetes. Cardiovascular disease risk reduction opportunities may be missed in some of these people.

The comparative efficacy of ezetimibe added to atorvastatin 10 mg versus uptitration to atorvastatin 40 mg in subgroups of patients aged 65 to 74 years or greater than or equal to 75 years

Background

Coronary heart disease (CHD) risk increases with age; yet lipid-lowering therapies are significantly under-utilized in patients > 65 years. The objective was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lipid-lowering therapies in older patients treated with atorvastatin 10 mg + ezetimibe 10 mg (EZ/Atorva) vs. increasing the atorvastatin dose to 40 mg.

Methods

Patients ≥ 65 years with atherosclerotic vascular disease (LDL-C ≥ 1.81 mmol/L) or at high risk for coronary heart disease (LDL-C ≥ 2.59 mmol/L) were randomized to EZ/Atorva for 12 wk vs. uptitration to atorvastatin 20 mg for 6 wk followed by atorvastatin 40 mg for 6 wk. The percent change in LDL-C and other lipid parameters and percent patients achieving prespecified LDL-C levels were assessed after 12 wk.

Results

EZ/Atorva produced greater reductions in most lipid parameters vs. uptitration of atorvastatin in patients ≥ 75 years (n = 228), generally consistent with patients 65–74 years (n = 812). More patients achieved LDL-C targets with combination therapy vs. monotherapy in both age groups at 6 wk and in patients ≥ 75 years at 12 wk. At 12 wk, more patients ≥ 75 years achieved LDL-C targets with monotherapy vs. combination therapy. EZ/Atorva produced more favorable improvements in most lipids vs. doubling or quadrupling the atorvastatin dose in patients ≥ 75 years, generally consistent with the findings in patients 65–74 years.

Conclusions

Our results extended previous findings demonstrating that ezetimibe added to a statin provided a generally well-tolerated therapeutic option for improving the lipid profile in patients 65 to 74 years and ≥ 75 years of age.

Reasons for non-use of proven pharmacotherapeutic interventions: systematic review and framework development

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The quality of patient care and safety is dependent on addressing both errors of commission (e.g. overuse of medications) and errors of omission (e.g. patients receiving too little care). Despite guidelines recommending the use of certain proven pharmacotherapeutic interventions, a large gap exists between the patients that have an indication for, and those that actually receive such interventions. To address how the rate of implementation of proven interventions can be improved is dependent on a comprehensive knowledge of the factors contributing to their underuse. The aim of the review is to create an evidence-based framework of reasons why eligible patients do not receive proven pharmacotherapeutic interventions.

METHODS

A systemic review of the published reasons for non-use based on the Cochrane methodology.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 67 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. The reasons for non-use were extracted from the studies and a framework was created from the results.

CONCLUSIONS

The factors associated with lack of implementation of proven pharmacotherapeutic interventions are complex and heterogeneous but can be understood from the perspectives of clinicians, patients and health care delivery systems. Efforts to increase the utilization of proven interventions should focus on disease/intervention-specific programmes that take into account the identified modifiable clinician, patient and system factors.

Undertreatment of hypercholesterolemia

Abstract Recent guidelines recommend strict goals for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (1.8-2.6 mmol/L; 70-100 mg/dL). However, these goals are not always met and many primary and secondary prevention patients are not optimally controlled. Both the under-prescription of lipid-lowering medication and lack of adherence to prescribed medications could account for this situation. In this issue of the journal, two studies evaluated the under-treatment of hypercholesterolemia in European countries, as well as patient/physician characteristics that are related to poor control of LDL-C. This editorial considers the implications of these findings. While we have come far in recent years in terms of treating hypercholesterolemia, we still have considerable room for improvement and progress towards evidence-based clinical practice.

Discontinuation of statin therapy following an acute myocardial infarction: a population-based study

AIMS

Randomized clinical trials have shown that statins can reduce mortality after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, the impact of changes in patterns of statin use, particularly stopping statins, on survival post-AMI is unknown. Our objective was to estimate the extent to which different patterns of statin use are associated with post-AMI mortality.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Population-based, cohort study, from 2002 through 2004 in the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database (GPRD), involving patients surviving 90 days after their first AMI. Past statin use was defined as any statin prescription within 90 days before AMI; statin use post-AMI as any statin prescription within 90 days after AMI. Cohort entry was at day 90 post-AMI; subjects were followed for 1 year. Four groups were identified: (i) non-users (patients never on statins); (ii) users (on statins before and continued post-AMI); (iii) starters (started statins after the event); and (iv) stoppers (stopped statins after the event). Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards model. The main outcome measure was 1-year all-cause mortality. The cohort included 9939 AMI survivors (mean age: 68.4 ± 12.8 years; 60.3% men), 22.7% of whom were not prescribed a statin post-AMI. When the non-user group (n = 2124) was considered as the reference, the adjusted HRs (95% confidence intervals) of death were 0.84 (0.66-1.09) for users (n = 2026), 0.72 (0.57-0.90) for starters (n = 5652), and 1.88 (1.13-3.07) for stoppers (n = 137). Stoppers of control medications (aspirin, β-blockers, and proton pump inhibitors) were not associated with increased mortality.

CONCLUSION

Discontinuation of statins in survivors of a first AMI was relatively rare in this cohort. However, statin discontinuation was associated with higher total mortality and this may represent a biological rebound or/and a risk-treatment mismatch phenomenon, where treatment is withdrawn from very ill patients. While awaiting further research, at present statin use should only be withdrawn under judicious clinical supervision.

How important is diabetes as a risk factor for cardiovascular and other diseases in older adults?

Patel and Kengne discuss a new study inPLoS Medicine which found a 2-fold increased risk of cardiovascular death associated with diabetes in people over 65 years old.

Underinvestigation and undertreatment of carotid disease in elderly patients with transient ischaemic attack and stroke: comparative population based study

OBJECTIVE

To identify any underinvestigation of older patients with transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and stroke.

DESIGN

Comparative population based studies.

SETTING

Routine clinical practice in all secondary care services in Oxfordshire and a nested population based study of incidence of transient ischaemic attack and stroke (the Oxford vascular study-OXVASC). PARTICIPANTS/POPULATION: All patients undergoing carotid imaging for ischaemic retinal or cerebral transient ischaemic attack or stroke from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2005 in the Oxford vascular study (n = 91,105) and from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 in routine clinical practice (n = 589,899).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Age specific rates of carotid imaging, diagnosed >or= 50% symptomatic carotid stenosis, and subsequent endarterectomy, in patients with recent transient ischaemic attack or stroke.

RESULTS

Of patients with recent carotid territory transient ischaemic attack or ischaemic stroke, 575 in routine clinical practice and 402 in the Oxford vascular study had carotid imaging, with similar rates up to the age of 80. The incidence of >or= 50% symptomatic stenosis increased steeply with age, particularly in those aged >or= 80. Compared with investigations in patients in the Oxford vascular study, the rates of carotid imaging (relative rate 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.46, P < 0.0001), diagnosis of >or= 50% symptomatic stenosis (0.33, 0.16 to 0.69, P = 0.004), and carotid endarterectomy (0.19, 0.06 to 0.63, P = 0.007) in this age group in routine clinical practice were all substantially lower.

CONCLUSIONS

Incidence of symptomatic carotid stenosis increases steeply with age, but, despite good evidence of major benefit from endarterectomy in elderly patients and a willingness to have surgery, there is substantial underinvestigation in routine clinical practice in patients aged >or= 80 with transient ischaemic attack or ischaemic stroke.

Comparison of the lipid-modifying efficacy and safety profiles of ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin in older versus younger patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: A post Hoc analysis of subpopulations from three pooled clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Despite the need for effective and well-tolerated lipid-lowering therapies for primary hypercholesterolemia in older patients, there is a relative paucity of published data on such treatments in this population.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a post hoc analysis to examine the lipid-modifying efficacy and safety profile of simvastatin (SIMVA) monotherapy, and the coadministration of ezetimibe (EZE) and SIMVA (EZE/SIMVA) in older (ie, aged>or=65 years) versus younger (ie, aged<65 years) patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

METHODS

We analyzed pooled data from 3 previously published, similarly designed, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. After a 6- to 8-week washout, a 4-week dietary stabilization period, and a 4-week placebo run-in period, patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of 145 to 250 mg/dL were randomized to EZE/SIMVA 10/10, 10/20, 10/40, or 10/80 mg; SIMVA 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; EZE 10 mg; or placebo for 12 weeks. In this post hoc analysis, the percent change from baseline to week 12 in LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B (apo B), triglycerides (TG), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) for EZE/SIMVA (pooled across doses) versus SIMVA alone (pooled across doses) was compared between older and younger patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. Tolerability was assessed by adverse event reports and laboratory and vital signs assessments throughout the study.

RESULTS

A total of 3083 patients aged 20 to 87 years were included in the 3 studies (2320 were aged<65 years and 763 were aged>or=65 years). Baseline lipid values and patient characteristics were similar among all treatment groups for patients aged<65 years versus those aged>or=65 years except that there was a higher percentage of females (62% vs 50%) and patients with hypertension (46% vs 29%) in the older versus younger subgroup (both, P<0.001). EZE/SIMVA was associated with greater improvements than SIMVA alone in LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apo B, TG, and hs-CRP (all, P<0.001); these effects did not appear to differ between the older and younger sub-groups (all, P=NS). Changes in HDL-C did not differ significantly between the EZE/SIMVA and SIMVA groups. More patients receiving EZE/SIMVA than SIMVA monotherapy achieved the target LDL-C level<100 mg/dL (P<0.001), regardless of age subgroup (77% vs 41% for patients aged<65 years and 85% vs 48% for patients aged>or=65 years). In the younger sub-group, the incidence of creatinine phosphokinase (CK) elevations>or=10x the upper limit of normal (ULN) was <I% in the placebo, SIMVA, and EZE/SIMVA groups and 0% in the EZE group; in the older subgroup, no CK elevations>or=10x ULN were reported. In younger patients, the incidence of consecutive alanine amino-transferase or aspartate aminotransferase levels>or=3x ULN was 0% for placebo and EZE, <1% for SIMVA, and 2% for EZE/SIMVA; in older patients, it was 1% for placebo and EZE, <1% for SIMVA, and 0% for EZE/SIMVA.

CONCLUSION

This post hoc analysis of pooled data from 3 previously published large clinical trials suggests that EZE/SIMVA was well tolerated and associated with improved lipid profiles in both older and younger patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.