Elsevier

Atherosclerosis

Volume 215, Issue 1, March 2011, Pages 223-228
Atherosclerosis

Socioeconomic and ethnic differences in use of lipid-lowering drugs after deregulation of simvastatin in the UK: The Whitehall II prospective cohort study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2010.12.012Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

We examined socioeconomic and ethnic differences in use of lipid-lowering drugs after deregulation of simvastatin in the UK for adults with moderate or high risk of coronary heart disease.

Methods

3631 participants in the Whitehall II cohort study (mean age 62.7 years, 91% white) were informed of their risk of coronary heart disease, based on Framingham score, before deregulation (2002–2004). The use of prescribed lipid-lowering drugs and use of over-the-counter simvastatin were analysed as outcome variables, after deregulation (2005–2007).

Results

2451 participants were at high risk and 1180 at moderate risk. 20% moderate-risk and 44% high-risk participants reported using prescribed lipid-lowering drugs although no over-the-counter simvastatin was used. Prescribing rates did not differ between employment grades (an index of socioeconomic position), but was higher among South Asian high-risk compared with White high-risk participants (odds ratio 1.64, 95% CI 1.21–2.23). Of the high-risk participants, 44% recalled their increased coronary heart disease risk. South Asian high-risk participants were less likely to recall than White high-risk participants (odds ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.46–0.93). Furthermore, high risk participants with middle (odds ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.61–0.89) and low (odds ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.37–0.74) employment grades were less likely to recall than those with high grades.

Conclusion

Socioeconomic and ethnic differences in reported use of lipid-lowering drugs were small, but the use of these drugs in general was much lower than recommended and the participants did not utilise over-the-counter statins. Ethnic minorities and lower socioeconomic position groups were less likely to be aware of their increased coronary risk.

Introduction

The way care is provided for chronic diseases has changed greatly over recent years. First, patients are encouraged to take a more active role in disease management and to share decision-making with their clinical team. Second, there have been shifts in the way care is provided, with an increasing number of access points for care [1]. In the UK, for example, the deregulation of simvastatin, which became available without prescription in August 2004, represented a major shift in the management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and has not been repeated for any comparable aspect of chronic disease management. The National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease (2000) (NSF), Joint British Societies’ guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in clinical practice (2005) and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence clinical guideline 67: lipid modification (2010) recommend that high-risk individuals with a 10-year CVD risk of ≥20% (equivalent to a 10-year coronary heart disease [CHD] risk of ≥15%) or with established CVD or diabetes be prescribed statins by clinicians. ‘Over the counter’ (OTC) statins were marketed for individuals at moderate-risk, i.e. those with “approximately 10–15% 10-year risk of a first major event of CHD” [2]. The stated rationale was that this was an attempt to increase choice through improved access to medicines [3], although some identified a financial motive [4].

This shift in the availability of simvastatin may be hypothesized to worsen health inequity, either because more affluent individuals would be more likely to purchase OTC statins or because awareness of one's CHD risk may also influence purchasing, given evidence that recall of CHD-related information may be socially patterned [5]. Prior to deregulation, studies of social variations in statin use produced conflicting results: a cross-sectional analysis in four primary care trusts in England found some evidence of lower prescribing rates in areas with higher South Asian ethnicity and deprivation [6]; in contrast, a study of older British men found no evidence for a social class differences in statin use for secondary prevention [7]. The latter finding was replicated in analysis of the health survey for England and in a survey of 9508 patients with angina in Scotland, although a prescribing bias toward the socioeconomically deprived was seen for some other CHD treatments [8]. To the best of our knowledge, there are no prospective cohort studies examining socioeconomic variations in use of lipid-lowering medications after deregulation, for both primary and secondary prevention.

Given the NSF's objective to both improve population health overall and to reduce inequalities, we analysed data from the Whitehall II cohort study. Our principal aim was to examine the extent to which the use of lipid-lowering drugs, both prescribed and OTC, differed between socioeconomic and ethnic groups after deregulation, in adults with both moderate and high CHD risk. As a secondary objective, we analysed prospectively collected data on recall of personal CHD risk sent to participants and their GPs 3 years previously, given the likely contributory role of variation in recall of CHD risk to health inequalities.

Section snippets

Study population

The Whitehall II study, established in 1985, is a longitudinal study to examine the socioeconomic gradient in health in British civil servants [9]. During the 2002–2004 data collection phase (the baseline for the present analysis), 6967 men and women aged 50–74 years underwent a clinical examination including assessment of their Framingham risk score. Between 2005 and 2007 (i.e. post-deregulation of simvastatin), participants were sent a health questionnaire including questions on use of

Results

There were 1218 participants with moderate risk and 2911 participants with high risk at baseline. Of these, 1180 (96.6%) and 2451 (84.2%) respectively were available for follow-up, dropout being greater in the high-risk group (p = 0.005 by Fisher's exact test). Compared to the analytic sample, participants lost to follow-up were slightly older (63.5 vs 62.7 years, p = 0.07), more likely to be women (31.3% vs 17.3%, p < 0.001), non-white (17.7% vs 9.0%, p < 0.001), and from the lowest employment grade

Discussion

Evidence from a well-characterised occupational cohort study of British men and women suggests that use of lipid-lowering drugs was low but did not vary by SEP. We found greater odds for high-risk South Asian patients to reported use of a prescribed drug which is consistent with advice current at the time to multiply estimated CVD risk by 1.4 in patients of South Asian origin to adjust for need [11]. Fewer participants overall recalled being told they were at increased risk of CHD than used

Competing interests

All authors have nothing to declare.

Contributors

IF (guarantor for the paper) and TC formulated the initial hypotheses and with MK designed the study and the analytic protocols. All authors contributed to the interpretation of results and writing the paper, and approved the final manuscript.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval for the Whitehall II study was obtained from the University College London Medical School Committee on the ethics of human research.

Funding

The Whitehall II study is funded by Medical Research Council; British Heart Foundation; Wellcome Trust; Health and Safety Executive; Department of Health; Agency for Health Care Policy Research, UK; John D and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation Research Networks on Successful Midlife Development and Socio-economic Status and Health; National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and National Institute on Aging, NIH, US. IF is funded by an MRC Clinical Research Training Fellowship; TC by HEFCE and ESRC;

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the Whitehall II participants and staff, particularly Aida Sanchez, Thérèse Butler, Stephanie Smith, Geoffrey Reading and Dimple Shah for their assistance in preparing this paper.

References (25)

  • B.C. Schouten et al.

    Cultural differences in medical communication: a review of the literature

    Patient Educ Couns

    (2006)
  • S. Willems et al.

    Socio-economic status of the patient and doctor–patient communication: does it make a difference?

    Patient Educ Couns

    (2005)
  • Department of Health

    Choosing health: making healthy choices easier

    (2004)
  • Johnson & Johnson MSD Consumer Pharmaceuticals

    Zocor heart-pro 10 mg tablets, summary of product characteristics

    (2004)
  • Department of Health. Press release, England,...
  • OTC statins: a bad decision for public health

    Lancet

    (2004)
  • B.K. Sanderson et al.

    Ethnic disparities in patient recall of physician recommendations of diagnostic and treatment procedures for coronary disease

    Am J Epidemiol

    (1998)
  • P.R. Ward et al.

    Are GP practice prescribing rates for coronary heart disease drugs equitable? A cross sectional analysis in four primary care trusts in England

    J Epidemiol Community Health

    (2004)
  • S.E. Ramsay et al.

    Secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in older British men: extent of inequalities before and after implementation of the National Service Framework

    J Public Health

    (2005)
  • N.F. Murphy et al.

    Prevalence, incidence, primary care burden and medical treatment of angina in Scotland: age, sex and socioeconomic disparities: a population-based study

    Heart

    (2006)
  • M.G. Marmot et al.

    Cohort profile: the Whitehall II Study

    Int J Epidemiol

    (2005)
  • K.M. Anderson et al.

    An updated coronary risk profile. A statement for health professionals

    Circulation

    (1991)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text