Cargando…

General practitioners’ use of absolute risk versus individual risk factors in cardiovascular disease prevention: an experimental study

OBJECTIVE: To understand general practitioners’ (GPs) use of individual risk factors (blood pressure and cholesterol levels) versus absolute risk in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk management decision-making. DESIGN: Randomised experiment. Absolute risk, systolic blood pressure (SBP), cholesterol...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jansen, Jesse, Bonner, Carissa, McKinn, Shannon, Irwig, Les, Glasziou, Paul, Doust, Jenny, Teixeira-Pinto, Armando, Hayen, Andrew, Turner, Robin, McCaffery, Kirsten
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4025465/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24833688
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004812
_version_ 1782316765308518400
author Jansen, Jesse
Bonner, Carissa
McKinn, Shannon
Irwig, Les
Glasziou, Paul
Doust, Jenny
Teixeira-Pinto, Armando
Hayen, Andrew
Turner, Robin
McCaffery, Kirsten
author_facet Jansen, Jesse
Bonner, Carissa
McKinn, Shannon
Irwig, Les
Glasziou, Paul
Doust, Jenny
Teixeira-Pinto, Armando
Hayen, Andrew
Turner, Robin
McCaffery, Kirsten
author_sort Jansen, Jesse
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To understand general practitioners’ (GPs) use of individual risk factors (blood pressure and cholesterol levels) versus absolute risk in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk management decision-making. DESIGN: Randomised experiment. Absolute risk, systolic blood pressure (SBP), cholesterol ratio (total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein (TC/HDL)) and age were systematically varied in hypothetical cases. High absolute risk was defined as 5-year risk of a cardiovascular event >15%, high blood pressure levels varied between SBP 147 and 179 mm Hg and high cholesterol (TC/HDL ratio) between 6.5 and 7.2 mmol/L. SETTING: 4 GP conferences in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 144 Australian GPs. OUTCOMES: GPs indicated whether they would prescribe cholesterol and/or blood pressure lowering medication. Analyses involved logistic regression. RESULTS: For patients with high blood pressure: 93% (95% CI 86% to 96%) of high absolute risk patients and 83% (95% CI 76% to 88%) of lower absolute risk patients were prescribed blood pressure medication. Conversely, 30% (95% CI 25% to 36%) of lower blood pressure patients were prescribed blood pressure medication if absolute risk was high and 4% (95% CI 3% to 5%) if lower. 69% of high cholesterol/high absolute risk patients were prescribed cholesterol medication (95% CI 61% to 77%) versus 34% of high cholesterol/lower absolute risk patients (95% CI 28% to 41%). 36% of patients with lower cholesterol (95% CI 30% to 43%) were prescribed cholesterol medication if absolute risk was high versus 10% if lower (95% CI 8% to 13%). CONCLUSIONS: GPs’ decision-making was more consistent with the management of individual risk factors than an absolute risk approach, especially when prescribing blood pressure medication. The results suggest medical treatment of lower risk patients (5-year risk of CVD event <15%) with mildly elevated blood pressure or cholesterol levels is likely to occur even when an absolute risk assessment is specifically provided. The results indicate a need for improving uptake of absolute risk guidelines and GP understanding of the rationale for using absolute risk.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4025465
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40254652014-05-21 General practitioners’ use of absolute risk versus individual risk factors in cardiovascular disease prevention: an experimental study Jansen, Jesse Bonner, Carissa McKinn, Shannon Irwig, Les Glasziou, Paul Doust, Jenny Teixeira-Pinto, Armando Hayen, Andrew Turner, Robin McCaffery, Kirsten BMJ Open Cardiovascular Medicine OBJECTIVE: To understand general practitioners’ (GPs) use of individual risk factors (blood pressure and cholesterol levels) versus absolute risk in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk management decision-making. DESIGN: Randomised experiment. Absolute risk, systolic blood pressure (SBP), cholesterol ratio (total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein (TC/HDL)) and age were systematically varied in hypothetical cases. High absolute risk was defined as 5-year risk of a cardiovascular event >15%, high blood pressure levels varied between SBP 147 and 179 mm Hg and high cholesterol (TC/HDL ratio) between 6.5 and 7.2 mmol/L. SETTING: 4 GP conferences in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 144 Australian GPs. OUTCOMES: GPs indicated whether they would prescribe cholesterol and/or blood pressure lowering medication. Analyses involved logistic regression. RESULTS: For patients with high blood pressure: 93% (95% CI 86% to 96%) of high absolute risk patients and 83% (95% CI 76% to 88%) of lower absolute risk patients were prescribed blood pressure medication. Conversely, 30% (95% CI 25% to 36%) of lower blood pressure patients were prescribed blood pressure medication if absolute risk was high and 4% (95% CI 3% to 5%) if lower. 69% of high cholesterol/high absolute risk patients were prescribed cholesterol medication (95% CI 61% to 77%) versus 34% of high cholesterol/lower absolute risk patients (95% CI 28% to 41%). 36% of patients with lower cholesterol (95% CI 30% to 43%) were prescribed cholesterol medication if absolute risk was high versus 10% if lower (95% CI 8% to 13%). CONCLUSIONS: GPs’ decision-making was more consistent with the management of individual risk factors than an absolute risk approach, especially when prescribing blood pressure medication. The results suggest medical treatment of lower risk patients (5-year risk of CVD event <15%) with mildly elevated blood pressure or cholesterol levels is likely to occur even when an absolute risk assessment is specifically provided. The results indicate a need for improving uptake of absolute risk guidelines and GP understanding of the rationale for using absolute risk. BMJ Publishing Group 2014-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC4025465/ /pubmed/24833688 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004812 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
spellingShingle Cardiovascular Medicine
Jansen, Jesse
Bonner, Carissa
McKinn, Shannon
Irwig, Les
Glasziou, Paul
Doust, Jenny
Teixeira-Pinto, Armando
Hayen, Andrew
Turner, Robin
McCaffery, Kirsten
General practitioners’ use of absolute risk versus individual risk factors in cardiovascular disease prevention: an experimental study
title General practitioners’ use of absolute risk versus individual risk factors in cardiovascular disease prevention: an experimental study
title_full General practitioners’ use of absolute risk versus individual risk factors in cardiovascular disease prevention: an experimental study
title_fullStr General practitioners’ use of absolute risk versus individual risk factors in cardiovascular disease prevention: an experimental study
title_full_unstemmed General practitioners’ use of absolute risk versus individual risk factors in cardiovascular disease prevention: an experimental study
title_short General practitioners’ use of absolute risk versus individual risk factors in cardiovascular disease prevention: an experimental study
title_sort general practitioners’ use of absolute risk versus individual risk factors in cardiovascular disease prevention: an experimental study
topic Cardiovascular Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4025465/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24833688
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004812
work_keys_str_mv AT jansenjesse generalpractitionersuseofabsoluteriskversusindividualriskfactorsincardiovasculardiseasepreventionanexperimentalstudy
AT bonnercarissa generalpractitionersuseofabsoluteriskversusindividualriskfactorsincardiovasculardiseasepreventionanexperimentalstudy
AT mckinnshannon generalpractitionersuseofabsoluteriskversusindividualriskfactorsincardiovasculardiseasepreventionanexperimentalstudy
AT irwigles generalpractitionersuseofabsoluteriskversusindividualriskfactorsincardiovasculardiseasepreventionanexperimentalstudy
AT glaszioupaul generalpractitionersuseofabsoluteriskversusindividualriskfactorsincardiovasculardiseasepreventionanexperimentalstudy
AT doustjenny generalpractitionersuseofabsoluteriskversusindividualriskfactorsincardiovasculardiseasepreventionanexperimentalstudy
AT teixeirapintoarmando generalpractitionersuseofabsoluteriskversusindividualriskfactorsincardiovasculardiseasepreventionanexperimentalstudy
AT hayenandrew generalpractitionersuseofabsoluteriskversusindividualriskfactorsincardiovasculardiseasepreventionanexperimentalstudy
AT turnerrobin generalpractitionersuseofabsoluteriskversusindividualriskfactorsincardiovasculardiseasepreventionanexperimentalstudy
AT mccafferykirsten generalpractitionersuseofabsoluteriskversusindividualriskfactorsincardiovasculardiseasepreventionanexperimentalstudy