Chen-Chang Yang1, Susan S Jick, Marcia A Testa. 1. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, 155 Li-Nong, Street, Section 2, Taipei, Taiwan 11217.
Abstract
AIMS: Little is known about the effects of comorbidities and patient characteristics on treatment initiation of lipid-lowering drugs (LLDs), which can be helpful in the evaluation of the risks and benefits of LLDs. METHODS: Baseline characteristics among subjects who received their first ever-recorded LLD prescription in general practice between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 1997, and hyperlipidaemic patients without LLD therapy during the same period were obtained from the UK General Practice Research Database. Differences between patients who received and patients who did not receive LLDs, as well as patients who received different classes of LLDs were compared by fitting multivariate logistic regression models that adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, and year of treatment initiation or hyperlipidaemia diagnosis. RESULTS: We found that there were many differences in the baseline characteristics, such as number of general practitioner visits, diagnosis and severity of cardiovascular diseases, and concurrent medications, between the 25 331 patients who received and the 16 287 patients who did not receive LLDs. We also noted that patients with statin therapy had more prior hospitalization, more recent myocardial infarction/stroke, and more concurrent cardiovascular medications, than those patients who received other LLDs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received LLDs in primary care, especially patients with statin therapy, were more likely to be elderly and to have more concomitant severe cardiovascular comorbidities than those hyperlipidaemic patients who did not receive LLDs. Examining the medical records of individuals eligible for LLD therapy is an important first step in selectively targeting who will experience the greatest benefit to risk ratio for the treatment of hyperlipidaemia, and is an important step in avoiding confounding by indication when designing epidemiological studies comparing the risks and benefits of treatments for hyperlipidaemia.
AIMS: Little is known about the effects of comorbidities and patient characteristics on treatment initiation of lipid-lowering drugs (LLDs), which can be helpful in the evaluation of the risks and benefits of LLDs. METHODS: Baseline characteristics among subjects who received their first ever-recorded LLD prescription in general practice between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 1997, and hyperlipidaemic patients without LLD therapy during the same period were obtained from the UK General Practice Research Database. Differences between patients who received and patients who did not receive LLDs, as well as patients who received different classes of LLDs were compared by fitting multivariate logistic regression models that adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, and year of treatment initiation or hyperlipidaemia diagnosis. RESULTS: We found that there were many differences in the baseline characteristics, such as number of general practitioner visits, diagnosis and severity of cardiovascular diseases, and concurrent medications, between the 25 331 patients who received and the 16 287 patients who did not receive LLDs. We also noted that patients with statin therapy had more prior hospitalization, more recent myocardial infarction/stroke, and more concurrent cardiovascular medications, than those patients who received other LLDs. CONCLUSIONS:Patients who received LLDs in primary care, especially patients with statin therapy, were more likely to be elderly and to have more concomitant severe cardiovascular comorbidities than those hyperlipidaemic patients who did not receive LLDs. Examining the medical records of individuals eligible for LLD therapy is an important first step in selectively targeting who will experience the greatest benefit to risk ratio for the treatment of hyperlipidaemia, and is an important step in avoiding confounding by indication when designing epidemiological studies comparing the risks and benefits of treatments for hyperlipidaemia.
Authors: K A Chan; S E Andrade; M Boles; D S Buist; G A Chase; J G Donahue; M J Goodman; J H Gurwitz; A Z LaCroix; R Platt Journal: Lancet Date: 2000-06-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: F M Sacks; M A Pfeffer; L A Moye; J L Rouleau; J D Rutherford; T G Cole; L Brown; J W Warnica; J M Arnold; C C Wun; B R Davis; E Braunwald Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-10-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J Shepherd; S M Cobbe; I Ford; C G Isles; A R Lorimer; P W MacFarlane; J H McKillop; C J Packard Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-11-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Julia Spoendlin; J Bradley Layton; Mallika Mundkur; Christian Meier; Susan S Jick; Christoph R Meier Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Brian L Strom; Rita Schinnar; Jason Karlawish; Sean Hennessy; Valerie Teal; Warren B Bilker Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: James H Flory; Susan Ellenberg; Philippe O Szapary; Brian L Strom; Sean Hennessy Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-01-08 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Heiner K Berthold; Ioanna Gouni-Berthold; Michael Böhm; Wilhelm Krone; Kurt P Bestehorn Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2009-05-13 Impact factor: 9.951
Authors: Loren Lipworth; Sergio Fazio; Edmond K Kabagambe; Heather M Munro; Victor C Nwazue; Robert E Tarone; Joseph K McLaughlin; William J Blot; Uchechukwu Ka Sampson Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2013-12-19 Impact factor: 4.790