Should statin guidelines consider patient preferences? Eliciting preferences of benefit and harm outcomes of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in the sub-Saharan African and European contexts

GLP-1 receptor agonists for weight reduction in people living with obesity but without diabetes: a living benefit-harm modelling study

Background

The benefit of Glucagon-like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs) in weight reduction against potential harms remains unclear. This study aimed at evaluating the benefit-harm balance of initiating GLP-1 RAs versus placebo for weight loss in people living with overweight and obesity but without diabetes.

Methods

We performed benefit-harm balance modelling, which will be updated as new evidence emerges. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, controlled trials registry, drug approval and regulatory documents, and outcome preference weights as of April 10, 2024. We synthesize data using pairwise meta-analysis to estimate the effect of GLP-1 RAs to inform the benefit-harm balance modelling. We predicted the absolute effects of the positive and negative outcomes over 1 and 2 years of treatment using exponential models. We applied preference weights to the outcomes, ranging from 0 for least concerning to 1.0 for most concerning. We then calculated whether the benefit of achieving 5% and 10% weight loss outweighed the harms on a common scale. The analyses accounted for the statistical uncertainties of treatment effects, preference weights, and outcome risks.

Findings

We included 8 RCTs involving 8847 participants. The pooled average age was 46.7 years, with the majority being women (74%) and people living with obesity (96%). Of 1000 persons treated with GLP-1 RAs for 2 years, 375 (95% confidence interval 352 to 399) achieved a 10% weight loss, and 318 (296 to 339) achieved a 5% weight loss compared to those treated with placebo. Several harm outcomes were more frequent in the GLP-1 RA group, including 41 abdominal pain events per 1000 persons over 2 years (19 to 69), cholelithiasis (8, 1 to 21), constipation (118, 78 to 164), diarrhoea (100, 42 to 173), alopecia (57, 10 to 176), hypoglycaemia (17, 1 to 68), injection site reactions (4, -3 to 19), and vomiting (110, 80 to 145) among others. Achieving a 10% weight loss with GLP-1 RA therapy outweighed the cumulative harms, with a net benefit probability of 0.97 at year 1 and 0.91 at year 2. The absolute net benefit was equivalent to 104 (100 to 112) per 1000 persons achieving a 10% weight loss over 2 years without experiencing any worrisome harm. A 5% weight loss did not show a net benefit, with probabilities of 0.13 and 0.01 at year 1 and year 2, respectively. However, these benefits were sensitive to preference weights, suggesting that even a 5% weight loss could be net beneficial for individuals with less concern about harm outcomes. The net benefit for a 10% weight loss was highest for semaglutide, followed by liraglutide and tirzepatide, with 2-year probabilities of 0.96, 0.72, and 0.60, respectively.

Interpretation

The benefit of GLP-1 RAs exceeded the harms for weight loss in the first 2 years of treatment, yet the net benefit was dependent on individual' treatment goals (10% or 5% weight loss) and willingness to accept harms in pursuit of weight loss. This implies that treatment decisions have to be personalized to individuals to optimize benefits and reduce harms and overuse of treatments. Due to varying evidence, especially regarding harm outcomes across studies, it is necessary to continuously update and monitor the benefit-harm balance of GLP-1 RAs.

Funding

SNSF and LOOP Zurich.

Perceived Importance of the Benefits and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Best-Worst Scaling Study

OBJECTIVES

To elicit the relative importance of the benefits and harms of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among potential screening participants in the Dutch population.

METHODS

In a consensus meeting with 11 experts, risk reduction of CRC and CRC deaths (benefits) and complications from colonoscopy, stress of receiving positive fecal immunological test (FIT) results, as well as false-positive and false-negative FIT results (harms) were selected as determinant end points to consider during decision making. We conducted an online best-worst scaling survey among adults aged 55 to 75 years from the Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel of The Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research to elicit preference values for these outcomes. The preference values were estimated using conditional logit regression.

RESULTS

Of 265 participants, 234 (89%) had ever participated in CRC screening. Compared with the stress of receiving a positive FIT result, the outcome perceived most important was the risk of CRC death (odds ratio [OR] 4.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.9-5.1), followed by risk of CRC (OR 4.1; 95% CI 3.6-4.7), a false-negative FIT result (OR 3.1; 95% CI 2.7-3.5), colonoscopy complications (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4-1.8), and a false-positive FIT result (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.3-1.6). The magnitude of these differences in perceived importance varied according to age, educational level, ethnic background, and whether the individual had previously participated in CRC screening.

CONCLUSION

Dutch men and women eligible for FIT-based CRC screening perceive the benefits of screening to be more important than the harms.

Patient and General Population Preferences Regarding the Benefits and Harms of Treatment for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Background

Patient preferences for treatment outcomes are important to guide decision-making in clinical practice, but little is known about the preferences of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).

Objective

To evaluate patient preferences regarding the attributed benefits and harms of systemic treatments for mHSPC and preference heterogeneity between individuals and specific subgroups.

Design setting and participants

We conducted an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) preference survey among 77 patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) and 311 men from the general population in Switzerland between November 2021 and August 2022.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

We evaluated preferences and preference heterogeneity related to survival benefits and treatment-related adverse effects using mixed multinomial logit models and estimated the maximum survival time participants were willing to trade to avert specific adverse effects. We further assessed characteristics associated with different preference patterns via subgroup and latent class analyses.

Results and limitations

Patients with mPC showed an overall stronger preference for survival benefits in comparison to men from the general population (p = 0.004), with substantial preference heterogeneity between individuals within the two samples (both p < 0.001). There was no evidence of differences in preferences for men aged 45-65 yr versus ≥65 yr, patients with mPC in different disease stages or with different adverse effect experiences, or general population participants with and without experiences with cancer. Latent class analyses suggested the presence of two groups strongly preferring either survival or the absence of adverse effects, with no specific characteristic clearly associated with belonging to either group. Potential biases due to participant selection, cognitive burden, and hypothetical choice scenarios may limit the study results.

Conclusions

Given the relevant heterogeneity in participant preferences regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for mHSPC, patient preferences should be explicitly discussed during decision-making in clinical practice and reflected in clinical practice guidelines and regulatory assessment regarding treatment for mHSPC.

Patient summary

We examined the preferences (values and perceptions) of patients and men from the general population regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. There were large differences between men in how they balanced the expected survival benefits and potential adverse effects. While some men strongly valued survival, others more strongly valued the absence of adverse effects. Therefore, it is important to discuss patient preferences in clinical practice.

Two Decades of Overuse and Underuse of Interventions for Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review

Quality use of anti-hypertensive and cholesterol-lowering medications is crucial for successful cardiovascular disease management. This systematic review aimed to estimate levels of over and underuse of services for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases from 2000 to 2020: overprescribing/underprescribing, overtesting/undertesting and overutilization/ underutilization of procedures compared to clinical practice guideline recommendations. Thirteen studies from USA, Europe, Asia and Australia were included. Wide practice variation was identified. Six studies reported overuse (eg, perioperative cardiac consultations, anti-hypertensive overprescribing for normotensive or pre-hypertensive people); and ten studies reported underuse (eg, under-prescribing of statins when indicated and under-screening for familial hypercholesterolemia). Lifestyle recommendations for cardiovascular disease prevention were largely underused. In summary, lack of adherence to published guidelines was prevalent over the past 2 decades for both primary and secondary prevention across settings. Further investigation of potentially justifiable deviations from guidelines are warranted to verify the estimates and identify points for intervention.

Older adult preferences regarding benefits and harms of statin and aspirin therapy for cardiovascular primary prevention

Objective

Personalizing preventive therapies for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is particularly important for older adults, as they tend to have multiple chronic conditions, increased risk for medication adverse effects, and may have heterogenous preferences when weighing health outcomes. However, little is known about outcome preferences related to ASCVD preventive therapies in older adults.

Methods

In May 2021, using an established online panel, KnowledgePanel, we surveyed older US adults aged 65-84 years without history of ASCVD on outcome preferences related to statin therapy (benefit outcomes to be reduced by the therapy: heart attack, stroke; adverse effects: diabetes, abnormal liver test, muscle pain) or aspirin therapy (benefit outcomes: heart attack, stroke; adverse effects: brain bleed, bowel bleed, stomach ulcer). We used standardized best-worst scores (range of -1 for "least worrisome" to +1 for "most worrisome") and conditional logistic regression to examine the relative importance of the outcomes.

Results

In this study, 607 ASCVD-free participants (median age 74, 46% male, 81% White) were included; 304 and 303 completed the statin and aspirin versions of the survey, respectively. For statin-related outcomes, stroke and heart attack were most worrisome (score 0.55; 95% CI 0.51, 0.60) and (0.53; 0.48, 0.58), followed by potential harms of diabetes (-0.07; -0.10, -0.03), abnormal liver test (-0.25; -0.29, -0.20), and muscle pain (-0.77; -0.82, -0.73). For aspirin-related outcomes, stroke and heart attack were similarly most worrisome (0.48; 0.43, 0.52) and (0.43; 0.38, 0.48), followed by brain bleed (0.30; 0.25, 0.34), bowel bleed (-0.31; -0.33, -0.28), and stomach ulcer (-0.90; -0.92, -0.87). Conditional logistic regression and subgroup analyses by age, sex, and race yielded similar results.

Conclusions

Older adults generally consider outcomes related to benefits of ASCVD primary preventive therapies-stroke and heart attack-more important than their adverse effects. Integrating patient preferences with risk assessment is an important next step for personalizing ASCVD preventive therapies for older adults.

Best-Worst Scaling and the Prioritization of Objects in Health: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Best-worst scaling is a theory-driven method that can be used to prioritize objects in health. We sought to characterize all studies of best-worst scaling to prioritize objects in health, to assess trends of using best-worst scaling in prioritization over time, and to assess the relationship between a legacy measure of quality (PREFS) and a novel assessment of subjective quality and policy relevance.

METHODS

A systematic review identified studies published through to the end of 2021 that applied best-worst scaling to study priorities in health (PROSPERO CRD42020209745), updating a prior review published in 2016. The PubMed, EBSCOhost, Embase, Scopus, APA PsychInfo, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were used and were supplemented by a hand search. Data describing the application, development, design, administration/analysis, quality, and policy relevance were summarized and we tested for trends by comparing articles before and after 1 January, 2017. Multivariate statistics were then used to assess the relationships between PREFS, subjective quality, policy relevance, and other possible indicators.

RESULTS

From a total of 2826 unique papers identified, 165 best-worst scaling studies were included in this review. Applications of best-worst scaling to study priorities in health have continued to grow (p < 0.01) and are now used in all regions of the world, most often to study the priorities of patients/consumers (67%). Several key trends can be observed over time: increased use of pretesting (p < 0.05); increased use of online administration (p < 0.01), and decreased use of paper self-administered surveys (p = 0.02); increased use of heterogeneity analysis (p = 0.02); an increase in having a clearly stated purpose (p < 0.01); and a decrease in comparing respondents to non-respondents (p = 0.01). The average sample size has more than doubled, from 228 to 472 respondents, but formal sample size justifications remain low (5.3%) and unchanged over time (p = 0.68). While the average PREFS score remained unchanged at 3.1/5, both subjective quality and policy relevance trended up, but changes were not statistically significant (p = 0.06 and p = 0.13). Most of the variation in subjective quality was driven by PREFS (R2 = 0.42), but it was also positively assosciated with policy relevance, heterogeneity analysis, and using a balanced incomplete block design, and was negatively associated with not using developmental methods and an increasing sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Using best-worst scaling to prioritize objects is now commonly used around the world to assess the priorities of patients and other stakeholders in health. Best practices are clearly emerging for best-worst scaling. Although legacy measures (PREFS) to measure study quality are reasonable, there may need to be new tools to assess both study quality and policy relevance.

Impact of Outcome Definitions on Cardiovascular Risk Prediction in a Contemporary Primary Prevention Population

BACKGROUND

Estimation of an individual's cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk may enhance risk discussion and treatment decisions. Yet, common cardiovascular outcomes such as heart failure or coronary revascularization are not included in the estimation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. Our objective was to determine the incidence of ASCVD in a contemporary primary prevention population with more than 10 years of follow-up, and how incidence estimates change when incorporating additional cardiovascular endpoints.

METHODS

We used the population-level CANHEART (Cardiovascular Health in Ambulatory Care Research Team) database of all Ontario residents alive January 1, 2008, aged 30-99 years, and with no prior history of cardiovascular disease. Individuals were followed to December 31, 2019 for incident first and recurrent cardiovascular events. ASCVD outcomes were defined by hospitalizations for myocardial infarction, stroke and circulatory death, while global CVD outcomes also included hospitalizations for unstable angina, transient ischemic attacks, peripheral arterial disease, out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, heart failure and coronary revascularization.

RESULTS

Among 7496 165 individuals free of cardiovascular disease, their mean age was 50 years (SD: 13.9 years) and 52.3% were women. After 11 years of follow-up, the rate of an incident ASCVD event was 3.95 per 1000 person-years while the rate of a global CVD event was almost doubled at 6.67 per 1000 person-years. The most common additional first manifestations of CVD were heart failure which accounted for 12.0% of additional events and coronary revascularization which accounted for 12.7%. When considering first and recurrent events, the rate of ASCVD was 5.20 per 1000 person-years while the rate of all global CVD events was more than double at 10.90 per 1000 person-years. This was mainly due to a higher proportion of recurrent heart failure (13.7%) and coronary revascularization (23.2%) events.

CONCLUSIONS

ASCVD accounts for just over half of all preventable first cardiovascular events and even fewer first and recurrent cardiovascular events in contemporary practice. Estimating broader CVD endpoints may enhance risk-discussions with patients and improve informed decision-making.

Fingolimod versus interferon beta 1-a: Benefit–harm assessment approach based on TRANSFORMS individual patient data

Background

Fingolimod is a disease-modifying drug approved for multiple sclerosis but its benefit–harm balance has never been assessed compared to other active treatments.

Objectives

Our aim was to compare the benefits and harms of fingolimod with interferon beta-1a using individual patient data from TRial Assessing injectable interferon versus FTY720 Oral in RRMS trial.

Methods

We modelled the health status of patients over time including Expanded Disability Status Scale measurements, relapses and any adverse events. We assessed the mean health status between arms and the proportion of patients whose health deteriorated or improved relatively to baseline, using a prespecified minimal important difference of 4.6. We performed sensitivity analyses to test our assumptions.

Results

Main and sensitivity analyses favoured fingolimod 0.5 mg over interferon beta-1a. The average health status difference was 1.01 (95% CI 0.93–1.08). Patients on fingolimod 0.5 mg were 0.47 (95% CI: 0.35–0.63, p < 0.001) times less likely to experience a relevant decline in health status compared to interferon beta-1a patients, with a number needed to treat of 7.10 [5.18, 11.23].

Conclusions

Fingolimod's net benefit over interferon beta-1a did not reach the clinical relevance over 1 year, but the decreased risk for health status deterioration may be more pronounced more long term and patients may prefer less treatment burden associated with fingolimod. [Formula: see text]

Patient Preference Distribution for Use of Statin Therapy

IMPORTANCE

Thresholds for initiating statin therapy should be informed by patients' preferences.

OBJECTIVE

To define the preference distribution for statin therapy across the spectrum of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk after participants were informed about the benefits and harms of statin therapy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted from May 13 to June 2, 2020. Participants included 304 individuals aged 40 to 75 years drawn from a nonprobability opt-in panel who had not taken a statin or proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor in the past 3 years and knew the results of their total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and blood pressure measurements.

EXPOSURES

Personalized 10-year CVD risk with and without statin therapy and potential harms of statins.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was self-reported preference for statin therapy.

RESULTS

The 304 participants had a mean (SD) age of 54.8 (9.9) years; 152 were women (50.0%), 130 (42.8%) non-White, 50 (16.6%) had a high school degree or less education, and 153 (50.8%) reported never needing help reading health materials. When asked their preference for using statin therapy after reviewing their benefit and risk information, 45% of the participants reported they would definitely or probably choose statin therapy. As the risk increased, the proportion who would choose statin therapy generally increased (from 31.1% for a risk <5% to 82.6% for a risk >50%). The minimum risk threshold had to increase to 20% before 75% of respondents in that risk group would want statin therapy. For participants with a risk greater than 10%, the desire to use statin therapy decreased as participants' health literacy, subjective numeracy, and knowledge scores increased.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, preferences for statin therapy for primary prevention of CVD appeared to vary across the spectrum of 10-year cardiovascular risk, but they were relatively flat at intermediate levels of risk. This preference distribution suggests a broad risk range for shared decision-making.

Iranian general populations' and health care providers' preferences for benefits and harms of statin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

The use of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases is associated with different benefit and harm outcomes. The aime of this study is how important these outcomes are for people and what people's preferences are.

METHODS

We conducted a preference-eliciting survey incorporating a best-worst scaling (BWS) instrument in Iran from June to November 2019. The relative importance of 13 statins-related outcomes was assessed on a sample of 1085 participants, including 913 general population (486 women) and 172 healthcare providers from the population covered by urban and rural primary health care centers. The participants made trade-off decisions and selected the most and least worrisome outcomes concurrently from 13 choice sets; each contains four outcomes generated using the balanced incomplete block design.

RESULTS

According to the mean (SD) BWS scores, which can be (+ 4) in maximum and (- 4) in minimum, in the general population, the most worrisome outcomes were severe stroke (3.37 (0.8)), severe myocardial infarction (2.71(0.7)), and cancer (2.69 (1.33)). While myopathy (- 3. 03 (1.03)), nausea/headache (- 2.69 (0.94)), and treatment discontinuation due to side effects (- 2.24 (1.14)) were the least worrisome outcomes. Preferences were similar between rural and urban areas and among health care providers and the general population with overlapping uncertainty intervals.

CONCLUSION

The rank of health outcomes may be similar in various socio-cultural contexts. The preferences for benefits and harms of statin therapy are essential to assess benefit-harm balance when recommending statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases.

Global variation of risk thresholds for initiating statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a benefit-harm balance modelling study

BACKGROUND

We previously showed that the 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk threshold to initiate statins for primary prevention depends on the baseline CVD risk, age, sex, and the incidence of statin-related harm outcome and competing risk for non-CVD death. As these factors appear to vary across countries, we aimed in this study to determine country-specific thresholds and provide guidelines a quantitative benefit-harm assessment method for local adaptation.

METHODS

For each of the 186 countries included, we replicated the benefit-harm balance analysis using an exponential model to determine the thresholds to initiate statin use for populations aged 40 to 75 years, with no history of CVD. The analyses took data inputs from a priori studies, including statin effect estimates (network meta-analysis), patient preferences (survey), and baseline incidence of harm outcomes and competing risk for non-CVD (global burden of disease study). We estimated the risk thresholds above which the benefits of statins were more likely to outweigh the harms using a stochastic approach to account for statistical uncertainty of the input parameters.

RESULTS

The 5th and 95th percentiles of the 10-year risk thresholds above which the benefits of statins outweigh the harms across 186 countries ranged between 14 and 20% in men and 19-24% in women, depending on age (i.e., 90% of the country-specific thresholds were in the ranges stated). The median risk thresholds varied from 14 to 18.5% in men and 19 to 22% in women. The between-country variability of the thresholds was slightly attenuated when further adjusted for age resulting, for example, in a 5th and 95th percentiles of 14-16% for ages 40-44 years and 17-21% for ages 70-74 years in men. Some countries, especially the islands of the Western Pacific Region, had higher thresholds to achieve net benefit of statins at 25-36% 10-year CVD risks.

CONCLUSIONS

This extensive benefit-harm analysis modeling shows that a single CVD risk threshold, irrespective of age, sex and country, is not appropriate to initiate statin use globally. Instead, countries need to carefully determine thresholds, considering the national or subnational contexts, to optimize benefits of statins while minimizing related harms and economic burden.

Outcome preferences of older people with multiple chronic conditions and hypertension: a cross-sectional survey using best-worst scaling

BACKGROUND

Older people with hypertension and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) receive complex treatments and face challenging trade-offs. Patients' preferences for different health outcomes can impact multiple treatment decisions. Since evidence about outcome preferences is especially scarce among people with MCC our aim was to elicit preferences of people with MCC for outcomes related to hypertension, and to determine how these outcomes should be weighed when benefits and harms are assessed for patient-centered clinical practice guidelines and health economic assessments.

METHODS

We sent a best-worst scaling preference survey to a random sample identified from a primary care network of Kaiser Permanente (Colorado, USA). The sample included individuals age 60 or greater with hypertension and at least two other chronic conditions. We assessed average ranking of patient-important outcomes using conditional logit regression (stroke, heart attack, heart failure, dialysis, cognitive impairment, chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury, fainting, injurious falls, low blood pressure with dizziness, treatment burden) and studied variation across individuals.

RESULTS

Of 450 invited participants, 217 (48%) completed the survey, and we excluded 10 respondents who had more than two missing choices, resulting in a final sample of 207 respondents. Participants ranked stroke as the most worrisome outcome and treatment burden as the least worrisome outcome (conditional logit parameters: 3.19 (standard error 0.09) for stroke, 0 for treatment burden). None of the outcomes were always chosen as the most or least worrisome by more than 25% of respondents, indicating that all outcomes were somewhat worrisome to respondents. Predefined subgroup analyses according to age, self-reported life-expectancy, degree of comorbidity, number of medications and antihypertensive treatment did not reveal meaningful differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some outcomes were more worrisome to patients than others, our results indicate that none of the outcomes should be disregarded for clinical practice guidelines and health economic assessments.

Potential of Stratified Medicine for High Blood Pressure Management: A Modeling Study Using NHANES Survey Data

The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guidelines lowered the thresholds for defining and treating hypertension. However, the SPRINT trial showed substantial heterogeneity in benefits and harms of intensive antihypertensive treatment depending on patients' characteristics. We aimed at illustrating the potential gains of personalizing intensive antihypertensive treatment. Using the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2011 to 2014 (n=2067), and prediction models derived from the SPRINT trial, we computed expected benefits and harms of intensive antihypertensive treatment for individuals aged 50 or more. We compared 2 interventions: (1) intensive antihypertensive treatment for all individuals meeting the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association thresholds and (2) a stratified medicine strategy excluding from intensive treatment individuals with predicted unfavorable benefit-risk. Outcome measures were model-predicted 5-year risk of cardiovascular events or death (myocardial infarction, acute coronary, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure, and cardiovascular-related death), and severe adverse events (hypotension, syncope, electrolyte abnormalities, bradycardia, and acute kidney injury). Per 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, 40.1 million (39.2%) US individuals aged 50 or more should initiate or intensify antihypertensive treatment, thereby preventing cardiovascular events for 795 000 individuals and inducing severe adverse events for 848 000 over 5 years. A stratified treatment strategy could decrease the number of individuals treated by 21.2 million (52.9%) and reduce the number of individuals with severe adverse events by 38.3%, with 11.7% fewer individuals with cardiovascular events prevented. Personalizing antihypertensive treatment according to predicted benefits and harms could spare treatment for more than half individuals while reducing harms 3× more than benefits.

Net benefit of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in people 75 years or older: a benefit-harm balance modeling study

BACKGROUND

We determined the risk thresholds above which statin use would be more likely to provide a net benefit for people over the age of 75 years without history of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

METHODS

An exponential model was used to estimate the differences in expected benefit and harms in people treated with statins over a 10-year horizon versus not treated. The analysis was repeated 100,000 times to consider the statistical uncertainty and produce a distribution of the benefit-harm balance index from which we determined the 10-year CVD risk threshold where benefits outweighed the harms. We considered treatment estimates from trials and observational studies, baseline risks, patient preferences, and competing risks of non-CVD death, and statistical uncertainty.

RESULTS

Based on average preferences, statins were more likely to provide a net benefit at a 10-year CVD risk of 24% and 25% for men aged 75-79 years and 80-84 years, respectively, and 21% for women in both age groups. However, these thresholds varied significantly depending on differences in individual patient preferences for the statin-related outcomes, with interquartile ranges of 21-33% and 23-36% for men aged 75-79 years and 80-84 years, respectively, as well as 20-32% and 21-32% for women aged 75-79 years and 80-84 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Statins would more likely provide a net benefit for primary prevention in older people taking the average preferences if their CVD risk is well above 20%. However, the thresholds could be much higher or lower depending on preferences of individual patients, which suggests more emphasis should be placed on individual-based decision-making, instead of recommending statins for everyone based on a single or a small number of thresholds.

Prescribing pattern of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in patients with type 2 diabetes: insights from Ethiopia

Objective

Although most clinical practice guidelines endorsed statin use in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients for reducing cardiovascular diseases (CVD), little is known about statin utilization in case of Ethiopia. Hence, this study was aimed to evaluate prescribing pattern of statins for primary prevention of CVD in T2D patients. A retrospective study conducted in T2D patients with the age group of 40–75 years. Prescriptions were audited for details of statin use and dose intensity. Descriptive analysis was performed using SPSS version 22.0.

Results

We included a total of 323 study subjects. Of those, 55.7% study subjects were found to be received statin for their primary prevention of CVD. Commonly prescribed type of statins was simvastatin (37.2%), atorvastatin (32.8%) and rosuvastatin (15.6%). Low, moderate and high intensive dose of statins were prescribed in 27.8%, 46.1%, and 26.1%, respectively. Of those subjects received statin, 60.6% had on target cholesterol level. Overall, a significant percentage of subjects did not receive their recommended statin for primary prevention of CVD which is below the guidelines’ recommendation. Therefore, adherence to guidelines may help to promote the use of statins for primary prevention of CVD in T2D and advance interventions to improve statin prescribing should be considered.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13104-019-4423-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of statins as a class and of specific statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis of randomized trials with 94,283 participants

The current guidelines of statins for primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention were based on results from systematic reviews and meta-analyses that suffer from limitations.

METHODS

We searched in PubMed for existing systematic reviews and individual open-label or double-blinded randomized controlled trials that compared a statin with a placebo or another, which were published in English until January 01, 2018. We performed a random-effect pairwise meta-analysis of all statins as a class and network meta-analysis for the specific statins on different benefit and harm outcomes.

RESULTS

In the pairwise meta-analyses, statins as a class showed statistically significant risk reductions on non-fatal MI (risk ratio [RR] 0.62, 95% CI 0.53-0.72), CVD mortality (RR 0.80, 0.71-0.91), all-cause mortality (RR 0.89, 0.85-0.93), non-fatal stroke (RR 0.83, 0.75-0.92), unstable angina (RR 0.75, 0.63-0.91), and composite major cardiovascular events (RR 0.74, 0.67-0.81). Statins increased statistically significantly relative and absolute risks of myopathy (RR 1.08, 1.01-1.15; Risk difference [RD] 13, 2-24 per 10,000 person-years); renal dysfunction (RR 1.12, 1.00-1.26; RD 16, 0-36 per 10,000 person-years); and hepatic dysfunction (RR 1.16, 1.02-1.31; RD 8, 1-16 per 10,000 person-years). The drug-level network meta-analyses showed that atorvastatin and rosuvastatin were most effective in reducing CVD events while atorvastatin appeared to have the best safety profile.

CONCLUSIONS

All statins showed statistically significant risk reduction of CVD and all-cause mortality in primary prevention populations while increasing the risk for some harm risks. However, the benefit-harm profile differed by statin type. A quantitative assessment of the benefit-harm balance is thus needed since meta-analyses alone are insufficient to inform whether statins provide net benefit.

Finding the Balance Between Benefits and Harms When Using Statins for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Modeling Study

BACKGROUND

Many guidelines use expected risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) during the next 10 years as a basis for recommendations on use of statins for primary prevention of CVD. However, how harms were considered and weighed against benefits is often unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the expected risk above which statins provide net benefit.

DESIGN

Quantitative benefit-harm balance modeling study.

DATA SOURCES

Network meta-analysis of primary prevention trials, a preference survey, and selected observational studies.

TARGET POPULATION

Persons aged 40 to 75 years with no history of CVD.

TIME HORIZON

10 years.

PERSPECTIVE

Clinicians and guideline developers.

INTERVENTION

Low- or moderate-dose statin versus no statin.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The 10-year risk for CVD at which statins provide at least a 60% probability of net benefit, with baseline risk, frequencies of and preferences for statin benefits and harms, and competing risk for non-CVD death taken into account.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

Younger men had net benefit at a lower 10-year risk for CVD than older men (14% for ages 40 to 44 years vs. 21% for ages 70 to 75 years). In women, the risk required for net benefit was higher (17% for ages 40 to 44 years vs. 22% for ages 70 to 75 years). Atorvastatin and rosuvastatin provided net benefit at lower 10-year risks than simvastatin and pravastatin.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Most alternative assumptions led to similar findings.

LIMITATION

Age-specific data for some harms were not available.

CONCLUSION

Statins provide net benefits at higher 10-year risks for CVD than are reflected in most current guidelines. In addition, the level of risk at which net benefit occurs varies considerably by age, sex, and statin type.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Swiss Government Excellence Scholarship Office, Béatrice Ederer-Weber Foundation, and North-South Cooperation at the University of Zurich.