Search

Rationales, Aims and Objectives: The increasing dispensing of statins has raised concern about the appropriateness of prescribing to various population groups. We aimed to (1) investigate incident and prevalent statin prescribing according to indication, gender and age and (2) relate prescribing patterns to evidence on beneficial and adverse effects., Methods: A cohort of Danish inhabitants (n = 4 424 818) was followed in nationwide registries for dispensed statin prescriptions and hospital discharge information. We calculated incidence rates (2005-2009), prevalence trends (2000-2010) and absolute numbers of statin users according to register proxies for indication, gender and age., Results: In 2010, the prevalence became highest for ages 75-84 and was higher in men than women (37% and 33%, respectively). Indication-specific incidences and prevalences peaked at ages around 65-70, but in myocardial infarction, the prevalence was about 80% at ages 45-80. Particularly, incidences tended to be lower in women until ages of about 60 where after gender differences were negligible. In asymptomatic individuals (hypercholesterolaemia, presumably only indication) aged 50+, dispensing was highest in women. The fraction of statin dispensing for primary prevention decreased with age: higher for incident than prevalent prescribing. Independent of age, this fraction was highest among women, e.g. 60% versus 45% at ages 55-64. The fraction for potential atherosclerotic condition (PAC, e.g. heart failure) increased with age., Conclusion: Prevalence of statin utilization was highest for ages 75-84, although indication-specific measures were relatively low. Despite inconclusive evidence for a favourable risk-benefit balance, statin prescribing was high among people aged 80+, asymptomatic women and PAC patients., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: There is uncertainty about how GPs should convey information about treatment effectiveness to their patients in the context of cardiovascular disease. Hence we study the concordance of decisions based on one of four single information formats for treatment effectiveness with subsequent decisions based on all four formats combined with a pictorial representation., Methods: A randomized study comprising 1,169 subjects aged 40-59 in Odense, Denmark. Subjects were randomized to receive information in terms of absolute risk reduction (ARR), relative risk reduction (RRR), number needed to treat (NNT), or prolongation of life (POL) without heart attack, and were asked whether they would consent to treatment. Subsequently the same information was conveyed with all four formats jointly accompanied by a pictorial presentation of treatment effectiveness. Again, subjects should consider consent to treatment., Results: After being informed about all four formats, 52%-79% of the respondents consented to treatment, depending on level of effectiveness and initial information format. Overall, ARR gave highest concordance, 94% (95% confidence interval (91%; 97%)) between initial and final decision, but ARR was not statistically superior to the other formats., Conclusion: Decisions based on ARR had the best concordance with decisions based on all four formats and pictorial representation, but the difference in concordance between the four formats was small, and it is unclear whether respondents fully understood the information they received.