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

Applying the behavior change wheel to design de-implementation strategies to reduce low-value statin prescription in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care

Introduction

A substantial proportion of individuals with low cardiovascular risk receive inappropriate statin prescription for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) instead of the evidence-based recommendations to promote healthy lifestyle behaviors. This study reports on the structured process performed to design targeted de-implementation strategies to reduce inappropriate prescription of statins and to increase healthy lifestyle promotion in low cardiovascular risk patients in Primary Care (PC).

Methods

A formative study was conducted based on the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW). It comprised semi-structured interviews with PC professionals to define the problem in behavioral terms; focus groups with Family Physicians and patients to identify the determinants (barriers and facilitators) of inappropriate statin prescription and of healthy lifestyle promotion practice; mapping of behavioral change interventions operationalized as de-implementation strategies for addressing identified determinants; and consensus techniques for prioritization of strategies based on perceived effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability.

Results

Identified key determinants of statin prescription and healthy lifestyle promotion were: the lack of time and clinical inertia, external resources, patients' preferences and characteristics, limitation of available clinical tools and guidelines, social pressures, fears about negative consequences of not treating, and lack of skills and training of professionals. Fourteen potential de-implementation strategies were mapped to the identified determinants and the following were prioritized: 1) non-reflective decision assistance strategies based on reminders and decision support tools for helping clinical decision-making; 2) decision information strategies based on the principles of knowledge dissemination (e.g., corporative diffusion of evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines and Pathways for CVD primary prevention); 3) reflective decision-making restructuring strategies (i.e., audit and feedback provided along with intention formation interventions).

Conclusions

This study supports the usefulness of the BCW to guide the design and development of de-implementation strategies targeting the determinants of clinicians' decision-making processes to favor the abandonment of low-value practices and the uptake of those recommended for CVD primary prevention in low-risk patients. Further research to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of selected strategies is warranted.

Clinical trial registration

Sanchez A. De-implementation of Low-value Pharmacological Prescriptions (De-imFAR). ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT04022850. Registered July 17, 2019. In: ClinicalTrials.gov. Bethesda (MD): U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM). Available from: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04022850.

Prescription of lipid-lowering medications for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and risk-associated LDL cholesterol: a nationwide study of guideline adherence from the Swedish National Diabetes Register

BACKGROUND

Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) encompasses intensive glycaemic control, along with treatment of comorbidities and complications to handle the increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Improved control of LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) with lipid-lowering medications is associated with reduced CVD risk in T2DM patients. Thus, treatment guidelines recommend lipid-lowering medications for T2DM patients with LDL-C above risk-associated thresholds. This study aimed to assess healthcare provider adherence to guidelines regarding lipid-lowering medication prescription among T2DM patients and to analyse factors associated with lipid-lowering medication prescription.

METHODS

Observations in 2007 - 2014 for T2DM patients age ≥ 18 were collected from the Swedish National Diabetes Register. Observations were excluded if they lacked information about LDL-C, lipid-lowering medication prescription or CVD. Observations with established CVD were attributed to secondary prevention; remaining observations were attributed to primary prevention. The analyses included primary and secondary prevention observations with LDL-C above risk-associated thresholds (LDL-C ≥ 2.5 mmol/l and LDL-C ≥ 1.8 mmol/l respectively). Guideline adherence was analysed as the probability of prescribing lipid-lowering medications using mixed-effect model regression adjusted for potential confounders. Factors associated with prescribing lipid-lowering medications were analysed for patient and healthcare provider characteristics using mixed-effect model regression and odds ratio.

RESULTS

A total of 1,204,376 observations from 322,046 patients reported by 1352 healthcare providers were included. Primary prevention accounted for 63%; 52% were men, mean age was 64 and mean LDL-C was 3.4 mmol/l. For secondary prevention, 60% were men, mean age was 72 and mean LDL-C was 2.7 mmol/l. During 2007-2014, guideline adherence ranged from 36 to 47% for primary prevention and 59 to 69% for secondary prevention. In general, concomitant prescription of diabetes medications, antiplatelets and antihypertensives along with smoking and specialised care were associated with higher prescription of lipid-lowering medications. Patients age ≥ 80 were associated with lower prescription of lipid-lowering medications. Higher prescription was associated with longer diabetes duration in primary prevention and men in secondary prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to treatment guidelines levelled off after an initial increase in both prevention groups. Lipid-lowering medication prescription was based on individualised CVD risk.

A comprehensive guidelines-based approach reduces cardiovascular risk in everyday practice: the VARO study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of study was to investigate the possibility of cardiovascular risk improvement through systematic identification of high-risk individuals and treatment in accordance with current guidelines using modern therapy in daily clinical practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two hundred and sixty-three physicians participated in the study. The physicians were asked to screen for cardiovascular risk factors in patients presenting with unrelated problems and to re-evaluate the attainment of treatment goals in those with already known risk factors. Each physician enrolled up to 20 consecutive patients with hypertension and/or hyperlipidemia. A total of 3015 patients were included. Cardiovascular risk was assessed using the SCORE system. Risk factors were treated in accordance with current national guidelines. The therapy of hyperlipidemia and hypertension was preferentially based on rosuvastatin, amlodipine and valsartan. Further medication was at the discretion of the attending physician. Patients were examined at baseline and after 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

The principal result is that global cardiovascular risk decreased by 35% (from 8.9 ±6.4 to 5.9 ±4.4, p < 0.001). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased by 12.5% (from 152 ±18 to 133 ±11, p < 0.001) and 11.4% (from 88 ±11 to 78 ±7, p < 0.001). The level of total cholesterol decreased 21% (from 6.3 ±1.2 to 5.0 ±0.9, p < 0.001) and the concentration of LDL-C decreased 28% (from 3.9 ±1.1 to 2.8 ±0.8, p < 0.001). HDL-C increased by 7% (from 1.43 ±0.58 to 1.53 ±0.56, p < 0.001) and triglycerides decreased by 25% (from 2.4 ±1.3 to 1.8 ±0.9, p < 0.001). Blood pressure and LDL-C target values were reached in 68% and 34%of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The VARO study demonstrates that in daily practice settings, both individual risk factors and global cardiovascular risk are significantly improved through the systematic identification of high-risk individuals and their treatment in accordance with current guidelines using modern pharmacotherapy.

Reducing Polypharmacy from the Perspectives of General Practitioners and Older Patients: A Synthesis of Qualitative Studies

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy, common in elderly multimorbid adults, leads to increased iatrogenic health risks. Yet, no consistent approach to stopping medicines exists in primary healthcare.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to synthesize qualitative studies exploring the perspectives and experiences of general practitioners (GPs) and older patients in reducing polypharmacy and to discover approaches already being practiced.

METHODS

We conducted a search in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus databases to identify qualitative studies in the primary care setting addressing multimorbid older patients and polypharmacy reduction. The seven-step model of meta-ethnography allowed for cross-interpretation between studies considering their original context and developing theories.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies from the perspectives of patients (n = 6) and providers (n = 8) were included, although discontinuing medicines only occurred as a sub-theme in patient studies. Emerging key concepts for patients were experimenting with medicines, attitudes and experiences towards medicines, necessity of prioritizing treatments, relationship to GP, and system-related contributors. For GPs, they covered assumptions about elderly patients, interface prescribing problems, evidence-based guidelines, failure to meet the challenge of complex decision-making, and solutions.

DISCUSSION

Complex medication regimens and uncertainties in decision making are challenges for both GPs and patients. For patients, symptom experiences with medicines, relationship with their prescriber, and fragmented care are at the forefront; for GPs, it is the decision-making responsibility in the context of unsuitable guidelines, time constraints, and deficient multidisciplinary co-operation. Heuristics such as prioritizing and individualizing treatments and relaxation of guidelines emerged. These strategies require professional awareness of the problem and establishing a trusting, patient-centered consultation style and supportive work conditions.

Simulated application of US cardiology guidelines for statin use to hospital patients in Turkey

OBJECTIVES

Simulate the application of the new cardiology prevention guideline on statin use in an angiography clinic sample taken from a hospital in Turkey.

METHODS

Taking statins was used as a quality indicator. All cases (323) included in the sample met criteria for taking statins upon arrival in the angiography clinic. The study population was divided into 3 groups: critical coronary artery disease (CAD) (>50%), noncritical (<50%), or individuals with normal coronary arteries. Patient risk factors were tested for association with taking statins using multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Only 20.2% of patients were taking statins when they were accepted for coronary angiography. Patients with critical CAD and noncritical CAD had higher odds of receiving statins than persons with no CAD [odds ratio (OR)=12.9, P<.001 and OR=3.5, P=.025, respectively]. Patients receiving angiographic interventions for stent control were more likely to be on statins than patients with angina (OR=5.298, P=0.004). Compared to those not taking the treadmill test, both those with positive and those with negative results had reduced odds of receiving statins (OR=0.260, P=.002, and OR=0.130, P=.002, respectively). Both former and current smokers had lower odds of receiving statins than persons who had never smoked (OR=0.148, P<.001, and OR=0.161, P=.001). Patients taking aspirin were at risk of not being on statins (OR=0.238, P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the patients in this study were not taking statins comparing according to US guidelines. Patients who exhibited risk factors for a cardiovascular event but who had not been diagnosed with CAD were at risk for not being on statins.