Variations in statin prescribing for primary cardiovascular disease prevention: cross-sectional analysis

Background Statins are an important intervention for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. We aimed to establish the variation in primary preventive treatment for CVD with statins in the English population. Methods Cross sectional analyses of 6155 English primary care practices with 40,017,963 patients in 2006/7. Linear regression was used to model prescribing rates of statins for primary CVD prevention as a function of IMD (index of multiple deprivation) quintile, proportion of population from an ethnic minority, and age over 65 years. Defined Daily Doses (DDD) were used to calculate the numbers of patients receiving a statin. Statin prescriptions were allocated to primary and secondary prevention based on the prevalence of CVD and stroke. Results We estimated that 10.5% (s.d.3.7%) of the registered population were dispensed a statin for any indication and that 6.3% (s.d. 3.0%) received a statin for primary CVD prevention. The regression model explained 21.2% of the variation in estimates of prescribing for primary prevention. Practices with higher prevalence of hypertension (β co-efficient 0.299 p <0.001) and diabetes (β co-efficient 0.566 p < 0.001) prescribed more statins for primary prevention. Practices with higher levels of ethnicity (β co-efficient-0.026 p <0.001), greater deprivation (β co-efficient −0.152 p < 0.001) older patients (β co-efficient −0.032 p 0.002), larger lists (β co-efficient −0.085, p < 0.001) and were more rural (β co-efficient −0.121, p0.026) prescribed fewer statins. In a small proportion of practices (0.5%) estimated prescribing rates for statins were so low that insufficient prescriptions were issued to meet the predicted secondary prevention requirements of their registered population. Conclusions Absolute estimated prescribing rates for primary prevention of CVD were 6.3% of the population. There was evidence of social inequalities in statin prescribing for primary prevention. These findings support the recent introduction of a financial incentive for primary prevention of CVD in England

Poised for Prevention: Advancing Promising Approaches to Primary Prevention of Intimate Partner Violence

Includes a discussion of primary prevention of partner violence, promising approaches to environmental/norms change, an examination of primary prevention within immigrant communities, and recommended actions and immediate next steps

Aspirin and the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases. An Approach Based on Individualized, Integrated Estimation of Risk

While the use of aspirin in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CVD) is well established, aspirin in primary prevention is not systematically recommended because the absolute CV event reduction is similar to the absolute excess in major bleedings. Recently, emerging evidence suggests the possibility that the assumption of aspirin, may also be effective in the prevention of cancer. By adding to the CV prevention benefits the potential beneficial effect of aspirin in reducing the incidence of mortality and cancer could tip the balance between risks and benefits of aspirin therapy in the primary prevention in favour of the latter and broaden the indication for treatment with in populations at average risk. While prospective and randomized study are currently investigating the effect of aspirin in prevention of both cancer and CVD, clinical efforts at the individual level to promote the use of aspirin in global (or total) primary prevention could be already based on a balanced evaluation of the benefit/risk ratio

The Governor's health and human services prevention plan July 1984

This is the Health and Human Services Plan submitted to the Governor’s Office by the Primary Prevention Council. Sections include prevention policy and chapters on accidents, adult care, child care, chronic disease, crime, mental health, perinatal mortality, and substance abuse

The health and human services prevention plan

This is the Health and Human Services Plan submitted to the Governor’s Office by the Primary Prevention Council. Sections include prevention policy, statistics of prevention budgets in FY 1982-1983, and chapters on accidents, adult care, child care, chronic disease, crime, mental health, perinatal mortality, and substance abuse

Infarct tissue characterization in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients for primary versus secondary prevention following myocardial infarction: a study with contrast-enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging

Knowledge about potential differences in infarct tissue characteristics between patients with prior life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia versus patients receiving prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) might help to improve the current risk stratification in myocardial infarction (MI) patients who are considered for ICD implantation. In a consecutive series of (ICD) recipients for primary and secondary prevention following MI, we used contrast-enhanced (CE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging to evaluate differences in infarct tissue characteristics. Cine-CMR measurements included left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes (EDV, ESV), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), wall motion score index (WMSI), and mass. CE-CMR images were analyzed for core, peri, and total infarct size, infarct localization (according to coronary artery territory), and transmural extent. In this study, 95 ICD recipients were included. In the primary prevention group (n = 66), LVEF was lower (23 ± 9 % vs. 31 ± 14 %; P < 0.01), ESV and WMSI were higher (223 ± 75 ml vs. 184 ± 97 ml, P = 0.04, and 1.89 ± 0.52 vs. 1.47 ± 0.68; P < 0.01), and anterior infarct localization was more frequent (P = 0.02) than in the secondary prevention group (n = 29). There were no differences in infarct tissue characteristics between patients treated for primary versus secondary prevention (P > 0.6 for all). During 21 ± 9 months of follow-up, 3 (5 %) patients in the primary prevention group and 9 (31 %) in the secondary prevention group experienced appropriate ICD therapy for treatment of ventricular arrhythmia (P < 0.01). There was no difference in infarct tissue characteristics between recipients of ICD for primary versus secondary prevention, while the secondary prevention group showed a higher frequency of applied ICD therapy for ventricular arrhythmia.\u

Primary prevention of ischaemic cardiovascular disorders with antiplatelet agents.

In those who have already survived myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, or have had a transient ischaemic episode (TIA), daily low dose aspirin (ASA) reduces the risk of recurrences by an amount that greatly exceeds the risk of serious bleeding (secondary prevention). ASA is therefore recommended for these people. However, in primary prevention-reducing risk in those so far free of clinically manifest episodes-the benefit is of the same order as the bleeding hazard, (which is much the same in both primary and secondary prevention contexts). The use of other effective agents such as statins further emphasises the even balance between benefit and hazard in primary prevention. Six primary prevention trials are reviewed, first singly and then in a meta-analysis based on individual patient data. ASA reduced non-fatal myocardial infarction by about 25%. However, death from coronary heart disease (CHD) was not significantly reduced (by 5%), nor was any vascular death (3%). There was a non- significant reduction in strokes of 5%, this being the net result of an 8% reduction in non-fatal stroke and a 21% increase in stroke death (mainly from haemorrhagic events), both effects being non-significant. Serious vascular events (MI, stroke or vascular death) were significantly reduced by 12%, mainly due to the large effect on non-fatal MI. About 1650 people would need to be treated with ASA for a year to avoid one serious vascular event, which contrasts with the 10-20 events avoided in secondary prevention by treating 1,000 patients for a year. Other primary prevention trials not included in the meta-analysis have also reported no benefits in MI or stroke, but the findings of still unpublished trials are awaited. Recently, however, encouraging results have come from meta-analyses of the effects of ASA on cancer incidence and mortality and on its effects on cancer metastasis, particularly for adenocarcinomas. Typically, reductions in these measures have been around 30% following treatment for four or five years, but more in several instances. These results alter the balance in primary prevention between benefit and hazard as it appears for arterial events alone, tipping it towards the use of ASA. Consequently, new guidelines on advice and decisions on ASA in primary prevention are now needed. Low dose ASA, eg. 75 mg daily is as effective as higher doses for all the vascular and cancer benefits established in the meta-analyses, and it causes less serious bleeding than higher doses

Statins for primary and secondary prevention in the oldest old : an overview of the existing evidence

Hypercholesterolemia, although a modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease, is still one of the leading causes of death among older people in western countries. The use of statins among cholesterol reducing agents in both primary and secondary prevention has not been extensively studied in older patients in contrast to middle-aged patients. Despite a growing body of evidence in secondary prevention, statins are still under utilized in older patients with established vascular disease. On the other hand, the benefits of statins in primary prevention are not so clear. Therefore, the systematic use of statins in older patients with hypercholesterolemia needs to be further investigated

Designing Primary Prevention for People Living with HIV

Today, there are new reasons for a sharper focus on prevention for people living with HIV. Growing numbers of people with the disease are living more healthy, sexual lives. Recent evidence suggests that risk taking among both HIV-positive and negative people is increasing. After nearly two decades of life in the shadow of AIDS, communities are growing weary of traditional prevention messages and many people are openly grappling with difficult questions of intimacy and sex. Increasingly, people living with HIV also face multiple complex economic and substance abuse challenges that complicate prevention efforts.There is an urgent need -- and sufficient expertise -- to move forward with prevention campaigns focused on helping people living with HIV and AIDS avoid passing their infection along to others. Numerous innovative interventions for people with HIV show promise, including:a social marketing campaign for gay men and a five-session group intervention for women living with HIV in Massachusetts,a chat line for positives and a group session program for Latinas/Latinos in Los Angeles,Internet chat room interventions in Atlanta,a group session for gay Asian American-Pacific Islander Americans living with HIV in San Francisco, andPrevention Case Management programs newly funded by the Centers for Disease Control