Skip to main content

Increasing the use of statins in people at low cardiovascular risk is difficult

Although statins reduce cardiovascular events even in people at low risk,[1] population benefits from their more widespread use will occur only if a sufficiently high proportion of people at lower cardiovascular risk (whether based on a formal risk assessment or on age alone) are prescribed statins.[2] Some of these issues were discussed in a commentary published in the BMJ.

Early evidence from the NHS Health Check programme suggests that it will be difficult to achieve high statin uptake in people at low cardiovascular risk. NHS Health Check is a population-wide primary prevention programme that was established in England by the Department of Health in 2009.[3] The programme represents a major investment in the prevention and early detection of cardiovascular disease.

In early results from the programme, prescription of statins in people at high cardiovascular risk (≥20%) increased from around 25% to only 45%.[4] The prescription of statins is likely to be substantially lower than 45% in people at lower (10-20%) cardiovascular risk. The relative contributions of physician and patient factors in the low uptake of statins in people assessed by the programme are still unclear. Preliminary findings from programme evaluations suggest that many people are reluctant to be prescribed long term statins because of the risk of side effects and the need for regular monitoring.[5] Statins may be clinically effective and cost effective, but it will be difficult to increase their use in people at low cardiovascular risk.

Referencesz
  1. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaborators. The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials. Lancet2012;380:581-90.MedlineWeb of Science
  2. Abramson JD, Rosenberg HG, Jewell N, Wright JM. Should people at low risk of cardiovascular disease take a statin? BMJ2013;347:f6123. (22 October.)FREE Full Text
  3. Dalton AR, Soljak M. The Nationwide systematic prevention of cardiovascular disease: the UK’s health check programme. J Ambul Care Manage2012;35:206-15.CrossRefMedline
  4. Dalton AR, Bottle A, Okoro C, Majeed A, Millett C. Uptake of the NHS Health Checks programme in a deprived, culturally diverse setting: cross-sectional study. J Public Health2011;33:422-9.CrossRefWeb of Science
  5. Majeed A. Population-based risk reduction for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and kidney disease in England. SGIM Forum2011;34:9-13. https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=BFCC2CE4F2157051!281&authkey=!AGHtDs4ZEu7cLY8

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
Post a Comment
Read more

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...
Post a Comment
Read more

Relevance Over Recall: Rethinking How AI Uses Clinical Data

Our article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine argues that safe and effective AI in healthcare must incorporate mechanisms that emulate human judgement - down-weighting old, inaccurate or superseded information and prioritising what is recent, clinically relevant and reaffirmed - so that AI supports, rather than disrupts, high-quality patient care.  Clinicians constantly revise, reinterpret and filter past information so that only what is relevant, accurate and timely shapes present-day management decisions; medical records function as dynamic “working tools” rather than fixed archives. By contrast, many AI systems lack this capacity for selective forgetting and often treat all historical data as equally meaningful.  This can lead to outdated or low-confidence diagnoses being repeatedly resurfaced, persistent labels influencing clinical expectations, and irrelevant, long-resolved events cluttering summaries and decision-support outputs. Such indiscriminate recall...
Post a Comment
Read more