Statin prescribing for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A cross-sectional, observational study

21Citations
Citations of this article
83Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background The updated (2014) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline lowered the recommended threshold for statin prescription from 20% to 10% 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Aim To determine the characteristics of patients prescribed statins for primary prevention according to their CVD risk. Design and setting Cross-sectional study in primary care settings in the three east London CCGs (Newham, City and Hackney, and Tower Hamlets). Method Data were extracted from electronic health records of 930 000 patients registered with 137 of 141 general practices for a year ending 1 April 2014. Results Of 341 099 patients aged 30-74 years, excluding those with CVD or diabetes, 22 393 were prescribed statins and had a 10-year CVD risk recorded. Of these, 9828 (43.9%) had a CVD risk ≥20%, 7121 (31.8%) had a CVD risk of 10-19%, and 5444 (24.3%) had a CVD risk <10%. Statins were prescribed to 9828/19 755 (49.7%) of those at ≥20% CVD risk, to 7121/37 111 (19.2%) of those with CVD risk 10-19%, and to 5444/146 676 (3.7%) of those with CVD risk <10%. Statin prescription below the 20% CVD risk threshold targeted individuals in the 10-19% risk band in association with hypertension, high serum cholesterol, positive family history, older age, and south Asian ethnicity. Conclusion This study confirms continuing undertreatment of patients at highest CVD risk (≥20%). GPs prescribed statins to only one-fifth of those in the 10-19% risk band usually in association with known major risk factors. Only 3.7% of individuals below 10% were prescribed statins.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Homer, K., Boomla, K., Hull, S., Dostal, I., Mathur, R., & Robson, J. (2015). Statin prescribing for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A cross-sectional, observational study. British Journal of General Practice, 65(637), e538–e544. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp15X686113

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free