Understanding deprescribing of preventive cardiovascular medication: a Q-methodology study in patients

Older Adult Perspectives on Statin Continuation and Discontinuation in Primary Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: A Mixed-Methods Study

Background and Purpose

Evidence for statin use for primary cardiovascular disease prevention in older adults is limited. When evidence on risk-benefit profile of a medication is uncertain, using it or not becomes a preference-sensitive decision. We aimed to assess and explore patient perspectives on continuation and discontinuation of statins used for primary cardiovascular prevention in older adults.

Patients and Methods

We used a convergent mixed-methods design, conducting in parallel a survey among 47 patients and three focus groups (FGs) with 14 patients total. We recruited patients aged ≥65 years and taking a statin for primary cardiovascular prevention. The survey and FGs aimed to assess and explore patient experiences of statin use, and views on statin continuation and discontinuation, including patient decision-making. Quantitative and qualitative data were first analyzed separately - descriptive statistics for quantitative data and thematic analysis for qualitative data - and then integrated to create metainferences, using joint displays.

Results

Forty-one percent of patients (N=19) were reluctant to discontinue the statin, whereas 22% (N=10) were willing to try discontinuing it. A reason to continue the statin was its perceived necessity, while self-estimated low cardiovascular risk and wish to reduce medication burden were given as reasons to discontinue it. Lack of expertise assumed by the patients to decide about statin continuation or discontinuation, uncertainty about statin indication, and fear of having a cardiovascular event after discontinuation made many patients uncertain about deciding to continue or discontinue the statin. In this context, 70% (N=33) would rather have their physician choose for them, and 94% (N=44) would continue taking the statin for as long as their physician told them to do so.

Conclusion

This study highlights factors that influence patient willingness to continue or discontinue statins, patient uncertainty about statin continuation or discontinuation, and the important role physicians play in the decision-making process.

The Patient Typology about deprescribing and medication-related decisions: A quantitative exploration

This study aimed to test the adequacy of a quantitative measure of our qualitatively developed Patient Typology-categories of older adults' attitudes towards medicines and medicine decision-making-and identify characteristics associated with each Typology. We conducted secondary data analyses of a subset of survey item measures of adults (≥65 years) who were members of online survey panels in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands (n = 4688). Multinomial logistic regression analyses assessed associations between demographic, psychosocial and medication-related measures. Mean age was 71.5 (5), and 47.5% of participants were female. Factors associated with an increased likelihood of identifying with Typology 1 'Attached to medicines' over Typology 2 'Open to deprescribing' were higher positive attitude towards polypharmacy (RRR = 1.12, p = <0.001) and higher need for certainty (RRR = 1.11, p = 0.039). Factors associated with an increased likelihood of identifying with Typology 3 'Defers (medication decision-making) to others' over Typology 2 were older age (RRR = 1.47 per 10-year age increase, p = <0.001) and a decreased likelihood of prior deprescribing experience (RRR = 0.73, p = 0.033). This study provides validation of the Typology with large samples from four countries, with the quantitatively-measured typologies generally aligning with the qualitatively derived categories. Our Patient Typology measure provides a succinct way researchers can assess attitudes towards deprescribing.

Barriers and facilitators to deprescribing of cardiovascular medications: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise the current knowledge on barriers and facilitators to deprescribing cardiovascular medications (CVMs) at the levels of patients, informal caregivers and healthcare providers (HCPs).

DESIGN/SETTING

We conducted a systematic review of studies exploring/assessing patient, informal caregiver and/or HCP barriers and/or facilitators to deprescribing CVMs.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid/MEDLINE and Embase from January 2003 to November 2021.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We performed a deductive thematic analysis based on the framework of specific barriers and facilitators to deprescribing CVMs created by Goyal et al. We added a quantification of the occurrence of categories and themes in the selected articles to identify the resounding themes that indicate the greater impetus to address in future research.

RESULTS

Most frequent deprescribing barriers for patients, informal caregivers and HCPs included uncertainty due to lack of evidence regarding CVM deprescribing (in n=10 studies), fear of negative consequences following deprescribing (n=13) and social influences (n=14). A frequently reported facilitator to deprescribing, especially for patients and informal caregivers, was the occurrence of adverse drug events (n=7). Another frequently reported facilitator for patients were dislike of CVMs (n=9). Necessity and benefit of CVMs were seen as barriers or facilitators similarly by patients and HCPs.

CONCLUSION

The differences in patient, informal caregiver and HCP regarding barriers and facilitators to deprescribing CVMs stress the need for ground discussions about beliefs and preferences of each stakeholder implicated in deprescribing decisions. Furthermore, HCP uncertainty regarding CVM deprescribing highlights the need to provide HCPs with tools that enable sharing the risks and benefits of deprescribing with patients and ensure a safe deprescribing process.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020221973.

Clinical outcomes of modifying hypertension treatment intensity in older adults treated to low blood pressure

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Hypertension treatment reduces cardiovascular events. However, uncertainty remains about benefits and harms of deintensification or further intensification of antihypertensive medication when systolic blood pressure (SBP) is tightly controlled in older multimorbid patients, because of their frequent exclusion in trials. We assessed the association of hypertension treatment deintensification or intensification with clinical outcomes in older adults with tightly controlled SBP.

DESIGN

Longitudinal cohort study (2011-2013) with 9-month follow-up.

SETTING

U.S.-nationwide primary care Veterans Health Administration healthcare system.

PARTICIPANTS

Veterans aged 65 and older with baseline SBP <130 mmHg and ≥1 antihypertensive medication during ≥2 consecutive visits (N = 228,753).

EXPOSURE

Deintensification or intensification, compared with stable treatment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cardiovascular events, syncope, or fall injury, as composite and distinct outcomes, within 9 months after exposure. Adjusted logistic regression and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW, sensitivity analysis).

RESULTS

Among 228,753 patients (mean age 75 [SD 7.5] years), the composite outcome occurred in 11,982/93,793 (12.8%) patients with stable treatment, 14,768/72,672 (20.3%) with deintensification, and 11,821/62,288 (19.0%) with intensification. Adjusted absolute outcome risk (95% confidence interval) was higher for deintensification (18.3% [18.1%-18.6%]) and intensification (18.7% [18.4%-19.0%]), compared with stable treatment (14.8% [14.6%-15.0%]), p < 0.001 for both effects in the multivariable model). Deintensification was associated with fewer cardiovascular events than intensification. At baseline SBP <95 mmHg, cardiovascular event risk was similar for deintensification and stable treatment, and fall risk lower for deintensification than intensification. IPTW yielded similar results. Mean follow-up SBP was 124.1 mmHg for stable treatment, 125.1 mmHg after deintensification (p < 0.001), and 124.0 mmHg after intensification (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Antihypertensive treatment deintensification in older patients with tightly controlled SBP was associated with worse outcomes than continuing same treatment intensity. Given higher mortality among patients with treatment modification, confounding by indication may not have been fully corrected by advanced statistical methods for observational data analysis.

Patient values and preferences on polypharmacy and deprescribing: a scoping review

Background Understanding how patient values and preferences towards polypharmacy and deprescribing have been studied is important to gain insight on current knowledge in this area and to identify knowledge gaps. Aim To describe methods and outcomes for studying patient values and preferences towards polypharmacy and deprescribing, and to identify gaps in the existing literature. Method A scoping review was conducted on English-language studies that examined patient preferences and values related to polypharmacy and/or deprescribing among community-dwelling adults. MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, EconLit, Social Science Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and CINAHL/AgeLine were searched. Results Thirty articles were included. Surveys (n = 17, 56.7%), interviews/focus groups (n = 9, 30.0%), and mixed methods (n = 3, 10.0%), were commonly used methods. Patients Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (PATD) was the most common tool used (n = 9, 30.0%). Twelve themes related to attitudes, social pressure, and control of polypharmacy/deprescribing were identified. The most frequently-encountered themes included desire or willingness to reduce medication load and influence of healthcare provider on medication use. Conclusion PATD was commonly used to assess preferences and values towards polypharmacy and limited knowledge on patient-important outcomes were addressed. Future research should focus on shared decision-making and communicating risk versus benefit of medications.

A scoping review of Q-methodology in healthcare research

BACKGROUND

Q-methodology is an approach to studying complex issues of human 'subjectivity'. Although this approach was developed in the early twentieth century, the value of Q-methodology in healthcare was not recognised until relatively recently. The aim of this review was to scope the empirical healthcare literature to examine the extent to which Q-methodology has been utilised in healthcare over time, including how it has been used and for what purposes.

METHODS

A search of three electronic databases (Scopus, EBSCO-CINAHL Complete, Medline) was conducted. No date restriction was applied. A title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review, was conducted by a team of five reviewers. Included articles were English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles that used Q-methodology (both Q-sorting and inverted factor analysis) in healthcare settings. The following data items were extracted into a purpose-designed Excel spreadsheet: study details (e.g., setting, country, year), reasons for using Q-methodology, healthcare topic area, participants (type and number), materials (e.g., ranking anchors and Q-set), methods (e.g., development of the Q-set, analysis), study results, and study implications. Data synthesis was descriptive in nature and involved frequency counting, open coding and the organisation by data items.

RESULTS

Of the 2,302 articles identified by the search, 289 studies were included in this review. We found evidence of increased use of Q-methodology in healthcare, particularly over the last 5 years. However, this research remains diffuse, spread across a large number of journals and topic areas. In a number of studies, we identified limitations in the reporting of methods, such as insufficient information on how authors derived their Q-set, what types of analyses they performed, and the amount of variance explained.

CONCLUSIONS

Although Q-methodology is increasingly being adopted in healthcare research, it still appears to be relatively novel. This review highlight commonalities in how the method has been used, areas of application, and the potential value of the approach. To facilitate reporting of Q-methodological studies, we present a checklist of details that should be included for publication.

Trends and concerns of potentially inappropriate medication use in patients with cardiovascular diseases

Introduction: The use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) is an alarming social risk factor in cardiovascular patients. PIM administration may result in iatrogenic disorders and adverse consequences may be attenuated by limiting PIM intake.Areas covered: The goal of this review article is to discuss the trends, risks, and concerns regarding PIM administration with focus on cardiovascular patients. To find data, we searched literature using electronic databases (Pubmed/Medline 1966-2021 and Web of Science 1975-2021). The data search terms were cardiovascular diseases, potentially inappropriate medication, potentially harmful drug-drug combination, potentially harmful drug-disease combination, drug interaction, deprescribing, and electronic health record.Expert opinion: Drugs for heart diseases are the most commonly prescribed medications in older individuals. Despite the availability of explicit and implicit PIM criteria, the incidence of PIM use in cardiovascular patients remains high ranging from 7 to 85% in different patient categories. Physician-induced disorders often occur when PIM is administered and adverse effects may be reduced by limiting PIM intake. Main strategies promising for addressing PIM use include deprescribing, implementation of systematic electronic records, pharmacist medication review, and collaboration among cardiologists, internists, geriatricians, clinical pharmacologists, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals as basis of multidisciplinary assessment teams.

Exploring how GPs discuss statin deprescribing with older people: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Given uncertainty surrounding benefits and harms, shifts in patient health status, and changing patient goals and preferences, statin deprescribing may be considered in some older people. This decision should be carefully discussed between GPs and patients.

AIM

To explore how GPs discuss deprescribing of statins with their older patients.

DESIGN & SETTING

A qualitative study was undertaken using face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with Danish GPs from the regions of Southern Demark and Zealand.

METHOD

The GP participants belonged to group practices and were identified from personal networks and snowballing. The interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes and were conducted in English. They were analysed using systematic text condensation.

RESULTS

A total of 11 GPs were interviewed and three themes were identified. (1) Reason for initiating a discussion: statin deprescribing mainly came up when GPs reviewed medication lists. There were differences between GPs regarding when or if they brought up deprescribing. (2) Discussion topics: GPs often discussed their interpretation of evidence surrounding statin use in older people. There were differences in how and if GPs discussed patient preferences. GPs viewed uncertainty and life expectancy as difficult to discuss. (3) Depth of discussion: the perceived level of patient engagement, and clinical context, could influence the extent of discussion.

CONCLUSION

GPs identified a range of topics that could be discussed with patients surrounding statin deprescribing. The depth and content of discussions varied according to the situation, and between GPs. Challenges may exist in communicating around certain topics, such as uncertainty and life expectancy. Further understanding of how to best communicate around challenging topics, and development of structured frameworks, may help facilitate statin deprescribing discussions. Identifying what patients think is important to discuss would provide necessary insight to promote quality discussions and shared understanding of the decision.

Prescribing and deprescribing antihypertensive medication in older people by Dutch general practitioners: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To explore general practitioners' (GPs) routines and considerations on (de)prescribing antihypertensive medication (AHM) in older patients, their judgement on usability of the current guideline and needs for future support.

DESIGN

Semistructured interviews.

SETTING

Dutch general practice.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifteen GPs were purposively sampled based on level of experience and practice characteristics until saturation was reached.

RESULTS

GPs appeared reluctant to start AHM, especially in patient >80 years. High systolic blood pressure and history of cardiovascular disease or diabetes were enablers to start or intensify treatment. Reasons to refrain from this were frailty and patient preference. GPs described a tendency to continue AHM regimens unchanged, influenced by daily time constraints, automated prescription routines and anticipating discomfort when disturbing patients' delicate balance. GPs were only inclined to deprescribe AHM in terminally ill patients or after prolonged achievement of target levels in combination with side effects or patient preference. Deprescription was facilitated when GPs had experience with patients showing increased quality of life after deprescription and was withheld by anticipated regret (ie, GPs' fear of a stroke after deprescribing). GPs felt insufficient guidance from current guidelines, especially on deprescription.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs are reluctant to start or deprescribe AHM in older people and have a propensity to continue AHM within a daily routine that insufficiently supports critical medication review. (De)prescription is influenced by patient preferences and anticipated regret and current guidelines provide insufficient guidance.

Deprescribing preventive cardiovascular medication in patients with predicted low cardiovascular disease risk in general practice - the ECSTATIC study: a cluster randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

The use of cardiovascular medication for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is potentially inappropriate when potential risks outweigh the potential benefits. It is unknown whether deprescribing preventive cardiovascular medication in patients without a strict indication for such medication is safe and cost-effective in general practice.

METHODS

In this pragmatic cluster randomised controlled non-inferiority trial, we recruited 46 general practices in the Netherlands. Patients aged 40-70 years who were using antihypertensive and/or lipid-lowering drugs without CVD and with low risk of future CVD were followed for 2 years. The intervention was an attempt to deprescribe preventive cardiovascular medication. The primary outcome was the difference in the increase in predicted (10-year) CVD risk in the per-protocol (PP) population with a non-inferiority margin of 2.5 percentage points. An economic evaluation was performed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. We used multilevel (generalised) linear regression with multiple imputation of missing data.

RESULTS

Of 1067 participants recruited between 7 November 2012 and 18 February 2014, 72% were female. Overall, their mean age was 55 years and their mean predicted CVD risk at baseline was 5%. Of 492 participants in the ITT intervention group, 319 (65%) quit the medication (PP intervention group); 135 (27%) of those participants were still not taking medication after 2 years. The predicted CVD risk increased by 2.0 percentage points in the PP intervention group compared to 1.9 percentage points in the usual care group. The difference of 0.1 (95% CI -0.3 to 0.6) fell within the non-inferiority margin. After 2 years, compared to the usual care group, for the PP intervention group, systolic blood pressure was 6 mmHg higher, diastolic blood pressure was 4 mmHg higher and total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels were both 7 mg/dl higher (all P < 0.05). Cost and quality-adjusted life years did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the ECSTATIC study show that an attempt to deprescribe preventive cardiovascular medication in low-CVD-risk patients is safe in the short term when blood pressure and cholesterol levels are monitored after stopping. An attempt to deprescribe medication can be considered, taking patient preferences into consideration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with Dutch trial register on 20 June 2012 ( NTR3493 ).