Survival benefits of statins for primary prevention: a cohort study

Objectives: Estimate the effect of statin prescription on mortality in the population of England and Wales with no previous history of cardiovascular disease.  Methods: Primary care records from The Health Improvement Network 1987-2011 were used.Four cohorts of participants aged 60, 65, 70, or 75 years at baseline included 118,700,199,574, 247,149, and 194,085 participants; and 1.4, 1.9, 1.8, and 1.1 million person-years of data, respectively. The exposure was any statin prescription at any time before the participant reached the baseline age (60, 65, 70 or 75) and the outcome was all-cause mortality at any age above the baseline age. The hazard of mortality associated with statin prescription was calculated by Cox's proportional hazard regressions, adjusted for sex, year of birth, socioeconomic status, diabetes,antihypertensive medication, hypercholesterolaemia, body mass index, smoking status, and general practice. Participants were grouped by QRISK2 baseline risk of afirst cardiovascular event in the next ten years of <10%, 10-19%, or ≥20%.  Results: There was no reduction in all-cause mortality for statin prescription initiated in participants with a QRISK2 score <10% at any baseline age, or in participants aged 60at baseline in any risk group. Mortality was lower in participants with a QRISK2 score≥20% if statin prescription had been initiated by age 65 (adjusted hazard ratio (HR)0.86 (0.79-0.94)), 70 (HR 0.83 (0.79-0.88)), or 75 (HR 0.82 (0.79-0.86)). Mortality reduction was uncertain with a QRISK2 score of 10-19%: the HR was 1.00 (0.91-1.11)for statin prescription by age 65, 0.89 (0.81-0.99) by age 70, or 0.79 (0.52-1.19) by age75.  Conclusions: The current internationally recommended thresholds for statin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in routine practice may be too low and may lead to overtreatment of younger people and those at low risk

The impact of generic-only drug benefits on patients' use of inhaled corticosteroids in a Medicare population with asthma

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patients face increasing insurance restrictions on prescription drugs, including generic-only coverage. There are no generic inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), which are a mainstay of asthma therapy, and patients pay the full price for these drugs under generic-only policies. We examined changes in ICS use following the introduction of generic-only coverage in a Medicare Advantage population from 2003–2004.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Subjects were age 65+, with asthma, prior ICS use, and no chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (n = 1,802). In 2004, 74.0% switched from having a $30 brand-copayment plan to a generic-only coverage plan (restricted coverage); 26$15–25 brand copayments in 2003–2004 (unrestricted coverage). Using linear difference-in-difference models, we examined annual changes in ICS use (measured by days-of-supply dispensed). There was a lower-cost ICS available within the study setting and we also examined changes in drug choice (higher- vs. lower-cost ICS). In multivariable models we adjusted for socio-demographic, clinical, and asthma characteristics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In 2003 subjects had an average of 188 days of ICS supply. Restricted compared with unrestricted coverage was associated with reductions in ICS use from 2003–2004 (-15.5 days-of-supply, 95% confidence interval (CI): -25.0 to -6.0). Among patients using higher-cost ICS drugs in 2003 (n = 662), more restricted versus unrestricted coverage subjects switched to the lower-cost ICS in 2004 (39.8% vs. 10.3%). Restricted coverage was not associated with decreased ICS use (2003–2004) among patients who switched to the lower-cost ICS (18.7 days-of-supply, CI: -27.5 to 65.0), but was among patients who did not switch (-38.6 days-of-supply, CI: -57.0 to -20.3). In addition, restricted coverage was associated with decreases in ICS use among patients with both higher- and lower-risk asthma (-15.0 days-of-supply, CI: -41.4 to 11.44; and -15.6 days-of-supply, CI: -25.8 to -5.3, respectively).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this elderly population, patients reduced their already low ICS use in response to losing drug coverage. Switching to the lower-cost ICS mitigated reductions in use among patients who previously used higher-cost drugs. Additional work is needed to assess barriers to switching ICS drugs and the clinical effects of these drug use changes.</p

Low Rates of Both Lipid-Lowering Therapy Use and Achievement of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Targets in Individuals at High-Risk for Cardiovascular Disease across Europe

Aims To analyse the treatment and control of dyslipidaemia in patients at high and very high cardiovascular risk being treated for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in Europe. Methods and Results Data were assessed from the European Study on Cardiovascular Risk Prevention and Management in Usual Daily Practice (EURIKA, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00882336), which included a randomly sampled population of primary CVD prevention patients from 12 European countries (n = 7641). Patients’ 10-year risk of CVD-related mortality was calculated using the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) algorithm, identifying 5019 patients at high cardiovascular risk (SCORE 5% and/or receiving lipid-lowering therapy), and 2970 patients at very high cardiovascular risk (SCORE 10% or with diabetes mellitus). Among high-risk individuals, 65.3% were receiving lipid-lowering therapy, and 61.3% of treated patients had uncontrolled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels ( 2.5 mmol/L). For very-high-risk patients (uncontrolled LDL-C levels defined as 1.8 mmol/L) these figures were 49.5% and 82.9%, respectively. Excess 10-year risk of CVD-related mortality (according to SCORE) attributable to lack of control of dyslipidaemia was estimated to be 0.72%and 1.61% among high-risk and very-high-risk patients, respectively. Among high-risk individuals with uncontrolled LDL-C levels, only 8.7% were receiving a high-intensity statin (atorvastatin 40 mg/day or rosuvastatin 20 mg/day). Among veryhigh- risk patients, this figure was 8.4%. Conclusions There is a considerable opportunity for improvement in rates of lipid-lowering therapy use and achievement of lipid-level targets in high-risk and very-high-risk patients being treated for primary CVD prevention in EuropeWriting support was provided by Oxford PharmaGenesis Ltd, Oxford, UK, and was funded by AstraZenec

Changes in Drug Utilization during a Gap in Insurance Coverage: An Examination of the Medicare Part D Coverage Gap

Jennifer Polinski and colleagues estimated the effect of the "coverage gap" during which US Medicare beneficiaries are fully responsible for drug costs and found that the gap was associated with a doubling in discontinuing essential medications

Bone Loss in Diabetes: Use of Antidiabetic Thiazolidinediones and Secondary Osteoporosis

Clinical evidence indicates that bone status is affected in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Regardless of normal or even high bone mineral density, T2DM patients have increased risk of fractures. One class of antidiabetic drugs, thiazolidinediones (TZDs), causes bone loss and further increases facture risk, placing TZDs in the category of drugs causing secondary osteoporosis. Risk factors for development of TZD-induced secondary osteoporosis are gender (women), age (elderly), and duration of treatment. TZDs exert their antidiabetic effects by activating peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ (PPAR-γ) nuclear receptor, which controls glucose and fatty acid metabolism. In bone, PPAR-γ controls differentiation of cells of mesenchymal and hematopoietic lineages. PPAR-γ activation with TZDs leads to unbalanced bone remodeling: bone resorption increases and bone formation decreases. Laboratory research evidence points toward a possible separation of unwanted effects of PPAR-γ on bone from its beneficial antidiabetic effects by using selective PPAR-γ modulators. This review also discusses potential pharmacologic means to protect bone from detrimental effects of clinically used TZDs (pioglitazone and rosiglitazone) by using combinational therapy with approved antiosteoporotic drugs, or by using lower doses of TZDs in combination with other antidiabetic therapy. We also suggest a possible orthopedic complication, not yet supported by clinical studies, of delayed fracture healing in T2DM patients on TZD therapy