Patient-reported reasons for declining or discontinuing statin therapy: Insights from the PALM registry

Background: Many adults eligible for statin therapy for cardiovascular disease prevention are untreated. Our objective was to investigate patient‐reported reasons for statin underutilization, including noninitiation, refusal, and discontinuation.Methods and Results: This study included the 5693 adults recommended for statin therapy in the PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry. Patient surveys evaluated statin experience, reasons for declining or discontinuing statins, and beliefs about statins and cardiovascular disease risk. Overall, 1511 of 5693 adults (26.5%) were not on treatment. Of those not on a statin, 894 (59.2%) reported never being offered a statin, 153 (10.1%) declined a statin, and 464 (30.7%) had discontinued therapy. Women (relative risk: 1.22), black adults (relative risk: 1.48), and those without insurance (relative risk: 1.38) were most likely to report never being offered a statin. Fear of side effects and perceived side effects were the most common reasons cited for declining or discontinuing a statin. Compared with statin users, those who declined or discontinued statins were less likely to believe statins are safe (70.4% of current users vs. 36.9% of those who declined and 37.4% of those who discontinued) or effective (86.3%, 67.4%, and 69.1%, respectively). Willingness to take a statin was high; 67.7% of those never offered and 59.7% of patients who discontinued a statin would consider initiating or retrying a statin.Conclusions: More than half of patients eligible for statin therapy but not on treatment reported never being offered one by their doctor. Concern about side effects was the leading reason for statin refusal or discontinuation. Many patients were willing to reconsider statin therapy if offered

Statin use after acute myocardial infarction by patient complexity: Are the rates right?

Reprinted with permission of the publisher.Background: Guidelines suggest statin use after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) should be close to universal in patients without safety concerns yet rates are much lower than recommended, decline with patient complexity, and display substantial geographic variation. Trial exclusions have resulted in little evidence to guide statin prescribing for complex patients. Objective: Assess the benefits and risks associated with higher rates of statin use after AMI by baseline patient complexity. Research Design: Sample includes Medicare fee-for-service patients with AMIs in 2008-2009. Instrumental variable estimators using variation in local area prescribing patterns by statin-intensity as instruments were used to assess the association of higher statin prescribing rates by statin-intensity on 1-year survival, adverse events, and cost by patient complexity. Results: Providers appear to have individualized statin use across patients based on potential risks. Higher statin rates for non-complex AMI patients were associated with increased survival rates with little added adverse event risk. Higher statin rates for complex AMI patients were associated with tradeoffs between higher survival rates and higher rates of adverse events. Conclusions: Higher rates of statin use for non-complex AMI patients are associated with outcome rate changes similar to existing evidence. For the complex patients in our study, who were least represented in existing trials, higher statin-use rates were associated with survival gains and higher adverse event risks not previously documented. Policy interventions promoting higher statin-use rates for complex patients may need to be re-evaluated taking careful consideration of these tradeoffs.This project was supported by an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grant (1R21HS019574-01) under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Statin use and adverse effects among adults \u3e 75 years of age: Insights from the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry

Background: Current statin use and symptoms among older adults in routine community practice have not been well characterized since the release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline. Methods and results: We compared statin use and dosing between adults \u3e75 and ≤75 years old who were eligible for primary or secondary prevention statin use without considering guideline-recommended age criteria. The patients were treated at 138 US practices in the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry in 2015. Patient surveys also evaluated reported symptoms while taking statins. Multivariable logistic regression models examined the association between older age and statin use and dosing. Among 6717 people enrolled, 1704 (25%) were \u3e75 years old. For primary prevention, use of any statin or high-dose statin did not vary by age group: any statin, 62.6% in those \u3e75 years old versus 63.1% in those ≤75 years old (P=0.83); high-dose statin, 10.2% versus 12.3% in the same groups (P=0.14). For secondary prevention, older patients were slightly less likely to receive any statin (80.1% versus 84.2% [P=0.003]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.01 [P=0.06]), but were much less likely to receive a high-intensity statin (23.5% versus 36.2% [PP=0.0001]). Among current statin users, older patients were slightly less likely to report any symptoms (41.3% versus 46.6%; P=0.003) or myalgias (27.3% versus 33.3%; Conclusions: Overall use of statins was similar for primary prevention in those aged \u3e75 years versus younger patients, yet older patients were less likely to receive high-intensity statins for secondary prevention. Statins appear to be similarly tolerated in older and younger adult

Statin intensity and postoperative mortality following open repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BackgroundThere is a lack of evidence for the association between intensive statin therapy and outcomes following vascular surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between perioperative statin intensity and in-hospital mortality following open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair.MethodsPatients undergoing open AAA repair between 2009 and 2015 were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database. Statin use was classified into low, moderate and high intensity, based on American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. Supratherapeutic intensity was defined as doses higher than the recommended guidelines. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were undertaken to assess the association between statin intensity and postoperative major adverse events and in-hospital mortality.ResultsOf 6497 patients undergoing open AAA repair, 3217 (49·5 per cent) received perioperative statin. Statin users were more likely to present with three or more co-morbidities than non-users (26·5 versus 21·8 per cent; P < 0·001). Unadjusted postoperative mortality was significantly lower in statin users (2·6 versus 6·3 per cent; P < 0·001); however, there was no difference in the risk of developing major adverse events. Multivariable analysis showed that statin use was associated with lower odds of death (odds ratio 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·31 to 0·54). Moderate, high and supratherapeutic statin intensities were not associated with lower odds of death or major adverse events compared with low-intensity statin therapy.ConclusionStatin use is associated with lower odds of death in hospital following open AAA repair. High-intensity statins were not associated with lower morbidity or mortality

Frequency Of Development Of Connective Tissue Disease In Statin-Users Versus Nonusers

Statins have pleiotropic properties that may affect the development of connective tissue diseases (CTD). The objective of this study was to compare the risk of CTD diagnoses in statin users and nonusers. This study was a propensity score-matched analysis of adult patients (30 to 85 years old) in the San Antonio military medical community. The study was divided into baseline (October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2005), and follow-up (October 1, 2005 to March 5, 2010) periods. Statin users received a statin prescription during fiscal year 2005. Nonusers did not receive a statin at any time during the study. The outcome measure was the occurrence of 3 diagnosis codes of the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification consistent with CTD. We described co-morbidities during the baseline period using the Charlson Comorbidity Index. We created a propensity score based on 41 variables. We then matched statin users and nonusers 1:1, using a caliper of 0.001. Of 46,488 patients who met study criteria (13,640 statin users and 32,848 nonusers), we matched 6,956 pairs of statin users and nonusers. Matched groups were similar in terms of patient age, gender, incidence of co-morbidities, total Charlson Comorbidity Index, health care use, and medication use. The odds ratio for CTD was lower in statin users than nonusers (odds ratio: 0.80; 95% confidence interval: 0.64 to 0.99; p = 0.05). Secondary analysis and sensitivity analysis confirmed these results. In conclusion, statin use was associated with a lower risk of CTD. Published by Elsevier Inc.Pharmac

The association of statin use after cancer diagnosis with survival in pancreatic cancer patients: a SEER-medicare analysis.

BackgroundPancreatic cancer has poor prognosis and existing interventions provide a modest benefit. Statin has anti-cancer properties that might enhance survival in pancreatic cancer patients. We sought to determine whether statin treatment after cancer diagnosis is associated with longer survival in those with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).MethodsWe analyzed data on 7813 elderly patients with PDAC using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) - Medicare claims files. Information on the type, intensity and duration of statin use after cancer diagnosis was extracted from Medicare Part D. We treated statin as a time-dependent variable in a Cox regression model to determine the association with overall survival adjusting for follow-up, age, sex, race, neighborhood income, stage, grade, tumor size, pancreatectomy, chemotherapy, radiation, obesity, dyslipidemia, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).ResultsOverall, statin use after cancer diagnosis was not significantly associated with survival when all PDAC patients were considered (HR = 0.94, 95%CI 0.89, 1.01). However, statin use after cancer diagnosis was associated with a 21% reduced hazard of death (Hazard ratio = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67, 0.93) in those with grade I or II PDAC and to a similar extent in those who had undergone a pancreatectomy, in those with chronic pancreatitis and in those who had not been treated with statin prior to cancer diagnosis.ConclusionsWe found that statin treatment after cancer diagnosis is associated with enhanced survival in patients with low-grade, resectable PDAC

Geographic variation in statin use for complex acute myocardial infarction patients: evidence of effective care?

Reprinted with permission of publisher.BACKGROUND: Despite strong evidence to designate statin use for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) as "effective care," observational studies show that many patients with CVD do not receive statins. This suggests that statin prescribing decisions for complex CVD patients are preference sensitive. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate local area variation in statin prescribing for subsets of complex patients after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) to assess whether current statin prescribing patterns fit profiles of either "effective care" or "preference-sensitive care." RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 124,618 Medicare patients with fee-for-service parts A, B, and D benefits who were hospitalized with AMI in 2008 or 2009 with no evidence of AMI in the past 12 months. MEASURES:Patient complexity was defined by the presence of diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease in the year before AMI admission. Local area practice styles for "no statin," "lower-intensity statins," and "high-intensity statins" were measured using the driving area for clinical care method. Statin prescribing rates for complex patient subsets were contrasted across patients grouped by local areas practice styles. RESULTS: Lower statin treatment rates were observed for patients with complex conditions, especially among those with heart failure. However, substantial local area variation in statin prescribing is observed across all complex patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite guidelines promoting the use of statins for secondary prevention for CVD patients, substantial local area variation suggests that patient and provider beliefs and preferences weigh heavily in statin prescribing decisions.This project was supported by an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grant (1R21HS019574-01) under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Physicians' Experiences as Patients with Statin Side Effects: A Case Series.

Physicians are among those prescribed statins and therefore, subject to potential statin adverse effects (AEs). There is little information on the impact of statin AEs on physicians affected by them. We sought to assess the character and impact of statin AEs occurring in physicians and retired physicians, and to ascertain whether/how personal experience of AEs moderated physicians' attitude toward statin use. Seven active or retired physicians from the United States communicated with the Statin Effects Study group regarding their personal experience of statin AEs. AE characteristics, experience with (their own) physicians, and impact of AE was ascertained. We inquired whether or how their experience altered their own attitude toward statins or statin AEs. Patient A: Atorvastatin 40 then 80 mg was followed by cognitive problems, neuropathy, and glucose intolerance in a Radiologist in his 50s (Naranjo criteria: probable causality). Patient B: Atorvastatin 10 mg was followed in 2 months by muscle weakness and myalgia in an Internist in his 40s (probable causality). Patient C: Atorvastatin, ezetimibe/simvastatin, rosuvastatin at varying doses was followed shortly after by irritability, myalgia, and fatigue in a Cardiac Surgeon in his 40s (probable causality). Patient D: Simvastatin 20 then 40 mg was followed in 4 years by mitochondriopathy, myopathy, neuropathy, and exercise intolerance in an Emergency Medicine physician in his 50s (definite causality). Patient E: Simvastatin 20 mg and niacin 1000 mg was followed in one month by muscle weakness and myalgia in a Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation physician in his 50s (probable causality). Patient F: Lovastatin 20 mg then simvastatin 20 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg, rosuvastatin 5 mg, niacin 20 mg and ezetimbe 10 mg was followed by muscle weakness and myalgia in an Obstetrician/Gynecologist in his 70s (definite causality). Patient G: Ezetimibe/simvastatin and atorvastatin (dose unavailable) was followed shortly after by cognitive problems in a Radiologist in her 80s (probable causality). Thus AEs affected multiple quality-of-life relevant domains, often in combination, encompassing muscle (N = 5), fatigue (N = 2), peripheral neuropathy (N = 2), cognitive (N = 2), dysglycemia (N = 1) and behavioral manifestations (N = 1). In five, the AEs affected the physician professionally. Five physicians experienced dismissive attitudes in some of their own healthcare encounters. One noted that his experience helped not only his own attention to statin AEs, but that of other physicians in his community. Several stated that their experience altered their understanding of and/or attitude toward statin AEs, and/or their view of settings in which statin use is warranted. Statin AEs can have profound impact in high functioning professionals with implications to the individual, their professional life, and those whom they serve professionally

Effect of statins on venous thromboembolic events: a meta-analysis of published and unpublished evidence from randomised controlled trials

Background - It has been suggested that statins substantially reduce the risk of venous thromboembolic events. We sought to test this hypothesis by performing a meta-analysis of both published and unpublished results from randomised trials of statins. Methods and Findings - We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to March 2012 for randomised controlled trials comparing statin with no statin, or comparing high dose versus standard dose statin, with 100 or more randomised participants and at least 6 months' follow-up. Investigators were contacted for unpublished information about venous thromboembolic events during follow-up. Twenty-two trials of statin versus control (105,759 participants) and seven trials of an intensive versus a standard dose statin regimen (40,594 participants) were included. In trials of statin versus control, allocation to statin therapy did not significantly reduce the risk of venous thromboembolic events (465 [0.9%] statin versus 521 [1.0%] control, odds ratio [OR] = 0.89, 95% CI 0.78–1.01, p = 0.08) with no evidence of heterogeneity between effects on deep vein thrombosis (266 versus 311, OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72–1.01) and effects on pulmonary embolism (205 versus 222, OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76–1.12). Exclusion of the trial result that provided the motivation for our meta-analysis (JUPITER) had little impact on the findings for venous thromboembolic events (431 [0.9%] versus 461 [1.0%], OR = 0.93 [95% CI 0.82–1.07], p = 0.32 among the other 21 trials). There was no evidence that higher dose statin therapy reduced the risk of venous thromboembolic events compared with standard dose statin therapy (198 [1.0%] versus 202 [1.0%], OR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.80–1.20, p = 0.87). Risk of bias overall was small but a certain degree of effect underestimation due to random error cannot be ruled out. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary. Conclusions - The findings from this meta-analysis do not support the previous suggestion of a large protective effect of statins (or higher dose statins) on venous thromboembolic events. However, a more moderate reduction in risk up to about one-fifth cannot be ruled out

Health outcomes of statin users compared to non-users with Clostridium difficile infection

Background: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is the most common cause of nosocomial diarrhea, and the primary cause of healthcare-associated infections in the United States. Statins have beneficial effects independent of their lipid-lowering effects; these pleiotropic effects may include anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory activity. The potential role for statins in CDI is unique in that both the cholesterol-lowering and pleiotropic effects of statins could lead to improvements in clinical response for patients with CDI. Rationale: Limited data currently exist in the literature on the outcomes of statin users who develop CDI compared with non-users. The primary objective of this study was to compare CDI health outcomes in statin users and non-users in a national cohort of patients from a single-payer health system. Methods: This was a longitudinal, retrospective cohort study of all adult CDI patients receiving care from the Veterans Health Administration. Patients were divided into two groups based on statin exposure prior to and during the first CDI encounter. For the primary analysis, we created a propensity score-matched cohort to account for variables associated with indications for statin use. Once the matched cohort was derived, additional variables known to impact CDI outcomes were entered into a multivariable logistic regression model in order to determine the risk of individual CDI outcomes. Results: CDI outcomes were evaluated for statin users and non-users before and after propensity score-matching. In the unmatched cohort, statin use was significantly associated with reduced risk of 30-day mortality (aOR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36-1.00, p=0.0478). In the matched cohort, statin use remained significantly associated with a reduced risk of 30-day mortality (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.88, p=0.0198). No significant trends were found for inpatient mortality, 60-day recurrence, and severe or complicated CDI. Conclusion: This is the largest study comparing CDI health outcomes among statin users and non-users. Statin users were found to have significantly reduced 30-day mortality in both an unmatched and matched patient cohort compared to non-users. While these data support previous findings reported in the literature, no change in routine care of CDI patients can be recommended at this time.Pharmaceutical Science