Understanding deprescribing of preventive cardiovascular medication: a Q-methodology study in patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with low cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk potentially use preventive cardiovascular medication unnecessarily. Our aim was to identify various viewpoints and beliefs concerning the preventive CVD management of patients with low CVD risk using preventive cardiovascular medication. Furthermore, we investigated whether certain viewpoints were related to a preference for deprescription or the continuation of preventive cardiovascular medication. METHODS: In 2015, we purposively sampled patients from the intervention arm of the Evaluating Cessation of STatins and Antihypertensive Treatment In primary Care (ECSTATIC) trial in the Netherlands for this study. Participants made Q-sorts by ranking 43 statements concerning preventive CVD management from "totally disagree" to "totally agree". These Q-sorts were analyzed using PQMethod 2.35 software. A varimax procedure presented the distinguishing viewpoints that were favored by our participants. We used group discussion quotations to underline our findings. For validation purposes, we asked participants how well each viewpoint fitted them. RESULTS: Of 291 invited patients, 33 participated. Thirty-one Q-sorts were analyzed. The following three viewpoints were found: 1) a controlling viewpoint, in which patients held the belief that monitoring blood pressure and cholesterol levels is important (n=13, of which seven had their medication deprescribed and six continued their medication); 2) an autonomous viewpoint, in which patients showed a dislike of medication (n=8, of which seven had their medication deprescribed and one had it continued); and 3) an afraid viewpoint, in which patients were fearful of developing CVD (n=8, of which two had their medication deprescribed and six had it continued). Seventy-four percent of the participants believed that the viewpoint to which they were assigned was a good fit. CONCLUSION: Three well-discriminating viewpoints about preventive CVD management were determined. Knowing and recognizing these viewpoints is effective for general practitioners when discussing the deprescribing of preventive cardiovascular medications with patients and may be used to promote implementation of deprescription.

Risk stratification and treatment effect of statins in secondary cardiovascular prevention in old age: Additive value of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide.

BACKGROUND: To date, no validated risk scores exist for prediction of recurrence risk or potential treatment effect for older people with a history of a cardiovascular event. Therefore, we assessed predictive values for recurrent cardiovascular disease of models with age and sex, traditional cardiovascular risk markers, and 'SMART risk score', all with and without addition of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Treatment effect of pravastatin was assessed across low and high risk groups identified by the best performing models. DESIGN AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis in 2348 participants (age 70-82 years) with a history of cardiovascular disease within the PROspective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER) study. Composite endpoint was a recurrent cardiovascular event/cardiovascular mortality. RESULTS: The models with age and sex, traditional risk markers and SMART risk score had comparable predictive values (area under the curve (AUC) 0.58, 0.61 and 0.59, respectively). Addition of NT-proBNP to these models improved AUCs with 0.07 (p for difference ((pdiff)) = 0.003), 0.05 (pdiff = 0.009) and 0.06 (pdiff < 0.001), respectively. For the model with age, sex and NT-proBNP, the hazard ratio for the composite endpoint in pravastatin users compared with placebo was 0.67 (95% confidence interval 0.49-0.90) for those in the highest third of predicted risk and 0.91 (0.57-1.46) in the lowest third, number needed to treat 12 and 115 (pdiff = 0.038) respectively. CONCLUSION: In secondary cardiovascular prevention in old age addition of NT-proBNP improves prediction of recurrent cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular mortality and treatment effect of pravastatin. A minimal model including age, sex and NT-proBNP predicts as accurately as complex risk models including NT-proBNP.

Change in calculated cardiovascular risk due to guideline revision: A cross-sectional study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines and accompanying risk charts concerning cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) are regularly revised worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether revision of the Dutch CVRM guideline has led to the reclassification of patients and, accordingly, to changes in drug recommendations. METHODS: All medical records (year 2011) of patients aged 40-65 years with no history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) but using antihypertensive and/or lipid-lowering drugs, were selected from the Registration Network of General Practices associated with Leiden University Medical Center. Multiple imputation techniques for missing determinants were used. The individual cardiovascular risk was calculated and the resulting drug recommendation was assessed according to both the 2006 and 2012 versions of the guideline. RESULTS: In total, 2075 patients were selected, of whom 1248 fulfilled the guideline criteria (systolic blood pressure 115-180 mmHg and total cholesterol/high-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol ratio 3.5-8). According to the 2012 guideline, 58.2% of the patients had low risk and 249 patients (20.0%) shifted to a different risk category. For 150 of these patients (12.0%), this category shift implied a shift in drug recommendation. The probability of shifting in drug recommendation increased with increasing age, cholesterol level, and blood pressure, and by being male. CONCLUSION: Guideline revision may have important implications: based on identical values for risk factors, according to the latest revision of the Dutch CVRM guideline 20% of patients shifted in risk category and 12% of the patients shifted in drug recommendation.