Assessment of the appropriateness of cardiovascular preventive medication in older people: using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method

Abstract

Background: In clinical practice and science, there is debate for which older adults the benefits of cardiovascular preventive medications (CPM) still outweigh the risks in older age. Therefore, we aimed to assess how various clinical characteristics influence the judgement of appropriateness of CPM in older adults. Method: We assessed the appropriateness of CPM for adults ≥75 years with regard to clinical characteristics (cardiovascular variables, complexity of health problems, age, side effects and life expectancy) using the RAND/ University of California at Los Angeles Appropriateness Method. A multidisciplinary panel, including 11 medical professionals and 3 older representatives of the target population, received an up-to-date overview of the literature. Using 9-point Likert scales (1 = extremely inappropriate; 9 = extremely appropriate), they assessed the appropriateness of starting and stopping cholesterol lowering medication, antihypertensives and platelet aggregation inhibitors, for various theoretical clinical scenarios. There were two rating rounds, with one face-to-face discussion in between. The overall appropriateness judgments were based on the median panel ratings of the second round and level of disagreement. Results: The panelists emphasized the importance of the individual context of the patient for appropriateness of CPM. They judged that in general, a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease strongly adds to the appropriateness of CPM, while increasing complexity of health problems, presence of hindering or severe side effects, and life expectancy < 1 year all contribute to the inappropriateness of CPM. Age had only minor influence on the appropriateness judgments. The appropriateness judgments were different for the three types of CPM. The literature, time-to-benefit, remaining life expectancy, number needed to treat, and quality of life, were major themes in the panel discussions. The considerations to stop CPM were different from the considerations not to start CPM. Conclusion: Next to the patients’ individual context, which was considered decisive in the final decision to start or stop CPM, there were general trends of how clinical characteristics influenced the appropriateness, according to the multidisciplinary panel. The decision to stop, and not start CPM, appeared to be two distinct concepts. Results of this study may be used in efforts to support clinical decision making about CPM in older adults.