Faculty Bibliography

Importance: While statin therapy for primary cardiovascular prevention has been associated with reductions in cardiovascular morbidity, the effect on all-cause mortality has been variable. There is little evidence to guide the use of statins for primary prevention in adults 75 years and older. Objectives: To examine statin treatment among adults aged 65 to 74 years and 75 years and older when used for primary prevention in the Lipid-Lowering Trial (LLT) component of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT-LLT). Design, Setting, and Participants: Post hoc secondary data analyses were conducted of participants 65 years and older without evidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; 2867 ambulatory adults with hypertension and without baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were included. The ALLHAT-LLT was conducted from February 1994 to March 2002 at 513 clinical sites. Interventions: Pravastatin sodium (40 mg/d) vs usual care (UC). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome in the ALLHAT-LLT was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cause-specific mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction or fatal coronary heart disease combined (coronary heart disease events). Results: There were 1467 participants (mean [SD] age, 71.3 [5.2] years) in the pravastatin group (48.0% [n = 704] female) and 1400 participants (mean [SD] age, 71.2 [5.2] years) in the UC group (50.8% [n = 711] female). The baseline mean (SD) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were 147.7 (19.8) mg/dL in the pravastatin group and 147.6 (19.4) mg/dL in the UC group; by year 6, the mean (SD) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were 109.1 (35.4) mg/dL in the pravastatin group and 128.8 (27.5) mg/dL in the UC group. At year 6, of the participants assigned to pravastatin, 42 of 253 (16.6%) were not taking any statin; 71.0% in the UC group were not taking any statin. The hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in the pravastatin group vs the UC group were 1.18 (95% CI, 0.97-1.42; P = .09) for all adults 65 years and older, 1.08 (95% CI, 0.85-1.37; P = .55) for adults aged 65 to 74 years, and 1.34 (95% CI, 0.98-1.84; P = .07) for adults 75 years and older. Coronary heart disease event rates were not significantly different among the groups. In multivariable regression, the results remained nonsignificant, and there was no significant interaction between treatment group and age. Conclusions and Relevance: No benefit was found when pravastatin was given for primary prevention to older adults with moderate hyperlipidemia and hypertension, and a nonsignificant direction toward increased all-cause mortality with pravastatin was observed among adults 75 years and older. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000542.

There are an estimated 3.5 million Muslims in North America. During the holy month of Ramadan, healthy adult Muslims are to fast from predawn to after sunset. While there are exemptions for older and sick adults, many adults with diabetes fast during Ramadan. However, there are risks associated with fasting and specific management considerations for patients with diabetes. We evaluated provider practices and knowledge regarding the management of patients with diabetes who fast during Ramadan. A 15-question quality improvement survey based on a literature review and the American Diabetes Association guidelines was developed and offered to providers at the outpatient primary care and geriatric clinics at an inner-city hospital in New York City. Forty-five providers completed the survey. Most respondents did not ask their Muslim patients with diabetes if they were fasting during the previous Ramadan. Knowledge of fasting practices during Ramadan was variable, and most felt uncomfortable managing patients with diabetes during Ramadan. There is room for improvement in educating providers about specific cultural and medical issues regarding fasting for patients with diabetes during Ramadan.

Statins are the cornerstone of lipid-lowering therapy for cardiovascular disease prevention. The 2013 American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines represent a fundamental shift in how statins will be prescribed. The new guidelines recommend statins for nearly all older patients up to age 75 years, including healthy adults with low normal lipid levels and no atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk factors other than age. Under the 2013 guidelines, age becomes a main determinant for initiating statin therapy for primary prevention among older adults. Specifically, according to the new guidelines, white males aged 63-75, white females aged 71-75, African American males aged 66-75, and African American females aged 70-75 with optimal risk factors would be recommended for statin treatment for primary prevention. Based on the new guidelines, one could term these older adults as having "statin deficiency," a condition warranting statin treatment. We call this putative condition of age-related statin deficiency "statinopause." After careful examination of the trial evidence, we find very little support for the new recommendations for primary prevention. The lack of evidence underscores the need for clinical trials to determine the risks and benefits of statin therapy for primary prevention among older adults.

In patients aged >/=80 years without previous coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, or cerebrovascular disease, no evidence has shown a benefit from statin therapy. We examined the prevalence of statin use in patients aged >/=80 years for the indication of primary prevention. We reviewed the comprehensive electronic health records at the Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania for all patients aged >55 years with >/=1 primary care encounter from January 24, 2004 and December 31, 2009. The records were scrutinized for the use of a statin, active medical diagnoses, and laboratory values. Patients without a previous diagnosis of coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, or cerebrovascular disease were considered to have a primary prevention indication for statin therapy. The prevalence of statin use was examined, and a multivariate analysis was conducted to determine the predictors of use. A total of 89,086 patients were included in the analysis, with 22,646 patients aged >/=80 years. Of all the patients, 26% were prescribed a statin, of whom, 71% (n = 16,687) received it for primary prevention. Of the 14,604 patients aged >/=80 years with a primary prevention indication, 3,145 (22%) received a statin. A plot of 5-year age cohorts from 55 to >90 years demonstrated an n-shaped relation between age and statin use for primary prevention (18%, 23%, 27%, 29%, 28%, 26%, 21%, and 12%, p <0.001). Compared to patients aged <65 years, the ratio of statin prescription for secondary to primary prevention was 31% lower in patients aged >/=80 years (1.3 vs 1.9). Those aged >/=80 years with a primary prevention indication had, with treatment, a mean low-density lipoprotein level of 84 +/- 26 mg/dl. In conclusion, many patients aged >/=80 years receive statin therapy for primary prevention and are treated to aggressive low-density lipoprotein levels. Because the efficacy is uncertain and the potential adverse effects are many, we urgently need to define the cost, benefit, and risk of statin use in the very elderly.

Gerodontology 2012; doi: 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2010.00405.x Screening for elder mistreatment in dental and medical clinics Objective: Elder mistreatment (EM) is a potentially fatal and largely unrecognised problem in the United States. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of EM in busy clinics and specifically, we report on the feasibility of screening for EM as well as the appropriate instrumentation for screening. Background: Prevalence estimates for elder mistreatment vary, but recent data from a national sample of community-residing adults over 60 years of age indicate that 11.4% of older adults report some form of elder mistreatment. There is a paucity of research related to screening in dental and medical clinics to understand the prevalence in such practice settings. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from January 2008 to March 2009. We enrolled 241 patients at two clinics: a medical clinic (n = 102) and dental clinics (n = 139). A mini-mental status exam was conducted with a minimum of 18 or better for inclusion. An elder mistreatment screen was next used [elder assessment instrument (EAI-R) for medical and Hwalek-Sengstock elder abuse screening test (HS-EAST) for dental]. Results: For the 241 patients, we were able to compare data from the EAI-R with the HS-EAST. This pilot work demonstrates the feasibility of screening for EM in busy clinics since we documented patient enrolment of 20% in the medical clinics and 66% in dental clinics. Patients are willing to answer extremely-sensitive questions related to elder mistreatment and are also willing to use computer technology for interviewing. Conclusion: Dental and medical clinics are important practice venues to screen for elder mistreatment.

It has previously been shown that medical students perform poorly when assessing older adults with recurrent falls. To address this and teach students about other geriatric syndromes, a standardized patient, played by one of nine actresses, aging during the course of an afternoon, was developed. The patient is first aged 75 with falls, then 80 with memory problems, then 82 with an acute confusional state. The third-year students interact with the patient on a one-to-one basis. After seeing and examining her, the students write up the case and then meet with the supervising physician after each section to discuss the case. This intervention was well accepted, scoring 5.95 on a 7-point Likert-type scale. At the end of the clinical year, the students participated in an eight-case clinical skills examination that included a 79-year-old man with falls. Using the actor's checklists, the performances of the 42 medical students who had participated in the standardized patient experience were compared with those of the 128 who had not. Over the eight cases, there was no difference in the three domains of communication, information gathering, and physical examination, but in the geriatric case, the students who had participated in the experience performed significantly better in all three domains. The intervention students were also three times as likely to examine the subject's gait (60% vs 20%). A 3-hour interactive session substantially improved specific geriatric competencies. One can only wonder what more dedicated time could accomplish