Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the efficacy and safety of statins for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events in older adults, especially those aged 80 and older and with multimorbidity.MethodsThe National Institute on Aging and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute convened A multidisciplinary expert panel from July 31 to August 1, 2017, to review existing evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and consider whether statin safety and efficacy data in persons aged 75 and older without ASCVD are sufficient; whether existing data can inform the feasibility, design, and implementation of future statin trials in older adults; and clinical trial options and designs to address knowledge gaps. This article summarizes the presentations and discussions at that workshop.ResultsThere is insufficient evidence regarding the benefits and harms of statins in older adults, especially those with concomitant frailty, polypharmacy, comorbidities, and cognitive impairment; a lack of tools to assess ASCVD risk in those aged 80 and older; and a paucity of evidence of the effect of statins on outcomes of importance to older adults, such as statin-associated muscle symptoms, cognitive function, and incident diabetes mellitus. Prospective, traditional, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and pragmatic RCTs seem to be suitable options to address these critical knowledge gaps. Future trials have to consider greater representation of very old adults, women, underrepresented minorities, and individuals of differing health, cognitive, socioeconomic, and educational backgrounds. Feasibility analyses from existing large healthcare networks confirm appropriate power for death and cardiovascular outcomes for future RCTs in this area.ConclusionExisting data cannot address uncertainties about the benefits and harms of statins for primary ASCVD prevention in adults aged 75 and older, especially those with comorbidities, frailty, and cognitive impairment. Evidence from 1 or more RCTs could address these important knowledge gaps to inform person-centered decision-making. J Am Geriatr Soc 66:2188-2196, 2018.
Project description:PurposeRecent epidemiological evidence has suggested that use of lipid-lowering medications, particularly statins, was associated with reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and persistent physical disability in healthy older adults. However, the comparative efficacy of different statins in this group remains unclear. This study aimed to compare different forms of statins in their associations with CVD and physical disability in healthy older adults.MethodsThis post hoc analysis included data from 5981 participants aged ≥ 70 years (≥ 65 if US minorities; median age:74.0) followed for a median of 4.7 years, who had no prior CVD events or physical disability and reported using a statin at baseline. The incidence of the composite and components of major adverse cardiovascular events and persistent physical disability were compared across different statins according to their type, potency, and lipophilicity using multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models.ResultsAtorvastatin was the most used statin type at baseline (37.9%), followed by simvastatin (29.6%), rosuvastatin (25.5%), and other statins (7.0%, predominantly pravastatin). In comparisons of specific statins according to type and lipophilicity (lipophilic vs. hydrophilic statin), observed differences in all outcomes were small and not statistically significant (all p values > 0.05). High-potency statin use (atorvastatin and rosuvastatin) was marginally associated with lower risk of fatal CVD events compared with low-/moderate-potency statin use (hazard ratio: 0.59; 95% confidence interval: 0.35, 1.00).ConclusionThere were minimal differences in CVD outcomes and no significant difference in persistent physical disability between various forms of statins in healthy older adults. Future investigations are needed to confirm our results.
Project description:Latent class growth analysis is increasingly proposed as a solution to summarize the observed longitudinal treatment into a few distinct groups. When latent class growth analysis is combined with standard approaches like Cox proportional hazards models, confounding bias is not properly addressed because of time-varying covariates that have a double role of confounders and mediators. We propose to use latent class growth analysis to classify individuals into a few latent classes based on their medication adherence pattern, then choose a working marginal structural model that relates the outcome to these groups. The parameter of interest is defined as a projection of the true marginal structural model onto the chosen working model. Simulation studies are used to illustrate our approach and compare it with unadjusted, baseline covariates adjusted, time-varying covariates adjusted, and inverse probability of trajectory groups weighted adjusted models. Our proposed approach yielded estimators with little or no bias and appropriate coverage of confidence intervals in these simulations. We applied our latent class growth analysis and marginal structural model approach to a database comprising information on 52,790 individuals from the province of Quebec, Canada, aged more than 65 and who were statin initiators to estimate the effect of statin-usage trajectories on a first cardiovascular event.
Project description:Background/objectivesWe sought to determine whether statin use for primary prevention is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events or mortality in older men.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingPhysicians' Health Study participants.Participants7,213 male physicians ≥70 years without a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD).MeasurementsMultivariable propensity score for statin use with greedy matching (1:1) to minimize confounding by indication.ResultsMedian baseline age was 77 (70-102), median follow-up was 7 years. Non-users were matched to 1,130 statin users. Statin use was associated with an 18% lower risk of all-cause mortality, HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.69-0.98) and non-significant lower risk of CVD events, HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.70-1.06) and stroke, HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.45-1.09). In subgroup analyses, results did not change according to age group at baseline (70-76 or >76 years) or functional status. There was a suggestion that those >76 at baseline did not benefit from statins for mortality, HR 1.14 (95% CI 0.89-1.47), compared to those 70-76 at baseline, HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.61-1.11); however the CIs overlap between the two groups, suggesting no difference. Statin users with elevated total cholesterol had fewer major CVD events than non-users, HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.50-0.94) and HR 1.43 (95% CI 0.99-2.07)), respectively.ConclusionsStatin use was associated with a significant lower risk of mortality in older male physicians ≥70 and a nonsignificant lower risk of CVD events. Results did not change in those who were >76 years at baseline or according to functional status. There was a suggestion that those with elevated total cholesterol may benefit. Further work is needed to determine which older individuals will benefit from statins as primary prevention.
Project description:Purpose of reviewThe purpose of this review is to assess the evidence for primary prevention statin treatment in older adults, within the context of the most recent guideline recommendations, while also highlighting important considerations for shared decision-making.Recent findingsAs the average lifespan increases and the older adult population grows, the opportunity for prevention of morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease is magnified. Randomized trials and meta-analyses have demonstrated a clear benefit for primary prevention statin use through age 75, with uncertainty beyond that age. Despite these data supporting their use, current guidelines conflict in their statin treatment recommendations in those aged 70-75 years. Reflecting the paucity of evidence, the same guidelines are equivocal around primary prevention statins in those beyond age 75. Two large ongoing randomized trials (STAREE and PREVENTABLE) will provide additional insights into the treatment benefits and risks of primary prevention statins in the older adult population. In the meantime, a holistic approach in treatment decisions remains paramount for older patients.SummaryThe benefits of primary prevention statin treatment are apparent through age 75, which is reflected in the current ACC/AHA and USPSTF recommendations. Ongoing trials will clarify the utility in those beyond age 75.
Project description:Evidence to guide primary prevention in adults aged 75 years or older is limited.To project the population impact and cost-effectiveness of statin therapy in adults aged 75 years or older.Forecasting study using the Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model, a Markov model.Trial, cohort, and nationally representative data sources.U.S. adults aged 75 to 94 years.10 years.Health care system.Statins for primary prevention based on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol threshold of 4.91 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), 4.14 mmol/L (160 mg/dL), or 3.36 mmol/L (130 mg/dL); presence of diabetes; or 10-year risk score of at least 7.5%.Myocardial infarction (MI), coronary heart disease (CHD) death, disability-adjusted life-years, and costs.All adults aged 75 years or older in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey have a 10-year risk score greater than 7.5%. If statins had no effect on functional limitation or cognitive impairment, all primary prevention strategies would prevent MIs and CHD deaths and be cost-effective. Treatment of all adults aged 75 to 94 years would result in 8 million additional users and prevent 105 000 (4.3%) incident MIs and 68 000 (2.3%) CHD deaths at an incremental cost per disability-adjusted life-year of $25 200.An increased relative risk for functional limitation or mild cognitive impairment of 1.10 to 1.29 could offset the cardiovascular benefits.Limited trial evidence targeting primary prevention in adults aged 75 years or older.At effectiveness similar to that in trials, statins are projected to be cost-effective for primary prevention; however, even a small increase in geriatric-specific adverse effects could offset the cardiovascular benefit. Improved data on the potential benefits and harms of statins are needed to inform decision making.American Heart Association Western States Affiliate, National Institute on Aging, and the National Institute for Diabetes on Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
Project description:According to an influential account of aging effects on reading, older adults (65+ years) employ a more "risky" reading strategy compared to young adults (18-30 years), in which they attempt to compensate for slower processing by using lexical and contextual knowledge to guess upcoming (i.e., parafoveal) words more often. Consequently, while older adults may read more slowly, they might also skip words more often (by moving their gaze past words without fixating them), especially when these are of higher lexical frequency or more predictable from context. However, this characterization of aging effects on reading has been challenged recently following several failures to replicate key aspects of the risky reading hypothesis, as well as evidence that key effects predicted by the hypothesis are not observed in Chinese reading. To resolve this controversy, we conducted a meta-analysis of 102 eye movement experiments comparing the reading performance of young and older adults. We focused on the reading of sentences displayed normally (i.e., without unusual formatting or structures, or use of gaze-contingent display-change techniques), conducted using an alphabetic script or Chinese, and including experiments manipulating the frequency or predictability of a specific target word. Meta-analysis confirmed that slower reading by older compared to younger adults is accompanied by increased word-skipping, although only for alphabetic scripts. Meta-analysis additionally showed that word-skipping probabilities are unaffected by age differences in word frequency or predictability effects, casting doubt on a central component of the risky reading hypothesis. We consider implications for future research on aging effects on reading. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Project description:The elderly population is increasing worldwide, with subjects > 65 years of age constituting the fastest-growing age group. Furthermore, the elderly face the greatest risk and burden of cardiovascular disease mortality and morbidity. Although elderly patients, particularly those older > 75, have not been well represented in randomized clinical trials evaluating lipid-lowering therapy, the available evidence supporting the use of statin therapy in primary prevention in older individuals is derived mainly from subgroup analyses and post-hoc data. On the other hand, elderly patients often have multiple co-morbidities that require a high number of concurrent medications; this may increase the risk for drug-drug interactions, thereby reducing the potential benefits of statin therapy. The aim of this review was to present the relevant literature regarding statin use in the elderly for their primary cardiovascular disease, with the associated risks and benefits of treatment.