The objective of this study was to analyse persistence to lipid-lowering drug use for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in a new users cohort, to explore all-cause and cardiovascular related morbidity, comorbidity and mortality in this group and, finally, to study the relationship between persistence and morbimortality. We selected subjects who started lipid-lowering treatment for primary prevention of CVD between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2017 (N = 1424), and classified them as treatment-persistent or -nonpersistent. Bivariate analyses were performed to compare sociodemographic and clinical variables, morbimortality and time to event between groups. The association between morbidities was explored using comorbidity network analysis. The effect of persistence was analysed using logistic regression and Cox survival analyses. Only 38.7% of users were persistent with treatment. Persistent and nonpersistent users had similar sociodemographic and clinical profiles, although differed in age, smoking status, and glycemia. Comorbidity networks revealed that the number of co-occurring diagnoses was higher in nonpersistent than persistent users. Adjusted analyses indicated a protective effect of treatment persistence, especially against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), but this effect was not statistically significant. Observational studies are crucial to characterize real-world effectiveness.

We sought to identify specific profiles of new lipid-lowering drug users based on adherence to a healthy lifestyle and persistence with medication, and to characterize co-morbidities, co-treatments, and healthcare utilization for each of the profiles identified. Observational study in 517 participants in the Aragon Workers’ Health Study (AWHS) without previous cardiovascular disease (CVD) and who initiated lipid-lowering therapy. Data were collected from workplace medical examinations and administrative health databases (2010–2018). Using cluster analysis, we identified distinct patient profiles based on persistence with therapy and lifestyle. We then compared characteristics, morbidity, and healthcare utilization across clusters. Participants were aggregated into four clusters based on persistence with therapy, smoking status, adherence to Mediterranean diet, and physical activity. In cluster 1 (n = 113), comprising those with a healthiest lifestyle (14.2% smokers, 84.0% with medium-high adherence to Mediterranean diet, high physical activity), 16.8% were persistent. In cluster 3 (n = 108), comprising patients with the least healthy lifestyle (100% smokers, poor adherence to the Mediterranean diet, low level of physical activity), all were non-persistent. Clusters 2 (n = 150) and 4 (n = 146) both comprised patients with intermediate lifestyle behaviors, but differed in terms of persistence (100 and 0%, respectively). Compared with other clusters, the burden of morbidity, cardiovascular score, and healthcare utilization were lower in cluster 1. The healthy adherer effect was only observed in new lipid-lowering drug users of certain profiles. Furthermore, we found that differences in adherence to lifestyle and medication recommendations for CVD prevention influenced morbidity burden and healthcare utilization.

In this study, we investigated the relationship between sociodemographic, clinical, anthropometric, and lifestyle characteristics and the type of statin prescribed for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). We conducted an observational study in workers who began statin treatment. Statin therapy was categorized as “high-intensity” or “low–moderate-intensity”. Workers were classified according to the alignment of their statin therapy with the recommended management practices. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between the different variables studied and the probability of being prescribed high-intensity statins. The only variables associated with a higher probability of being treated with high-intensity statins were increased physical activity (>40 versus <20 METs (metabolic equivalent of task) h/wk; odds ratio (OR), 1.65; 95%CI, 1.08–2.50) and, in diabetics, higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (≥155 mg/dL versus <155 mg/dL; OR, 4.96; 95%CI, 1.29–19.10). The model that best predicted treatment intensity included LDL-C, diabetes, hypertension, smoking, and age (area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUC), 0.620; 95%CI, 0.574–0.666). The prescribing and type of statin used in primary CVD prevention did not correspond with the indications in current guidelines. The probability of receiving high-intensity statins was higher in diabetics with high LDL-C levels and in more physically active individuals. These findings underscore the great variability and uncertainty in the prescribing of statins.

In this study, we analyzed the effectiveness of statin therapy for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in low- and medium-risk patients. Using observational data, we estimated effectiveness by emulating a hypothetical randomized clinical trial comparing statin initiators with statin non-initiators. Two approaches were used to adjust for potential confounding factors: matching and inverse probability weighting in marginal structural models. The estimates of effectiveness were obtained by intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis. The intention-to-treat analysis revealed an absolute risk reduction of 7.2 (95% confidence interval (CI95%), −6.6–21.0) events per 1000 subjects treated for 5 years in the matched design, and 2.2 (CI95%, −3.9–8.2) in the marginal structural model. The per-protocol analysis revealed an absolute risk reduction of 16.7 (CI95%, −3.0–36) events per 1000 subjects treated for 5 years in the matched design and 5.8 (CI95%, 0.3–11.4) in the marginal structural model. The indication for statin treatment for primary prevention in individuals with low and medium cardiovascular risk appears to be inefficient, but improves with better adherence and in subjectvs with higher risk.

Low back pain (LBP) is a potential complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, some studies suggest that THA not only alleviates joint pain but also resolves LBP in up to 88.2% of patients. Most of these observations are limited to short-term follow-up. This study investigates the long-term relationship between THA and LBP, challenging the notion that THA resolves LBP. A retrospective review was conducted on 236 patients who underwent THA (2010–2020). Multiple statistical models were applied, including unadjusted unmatched, adjusted unmatched, adjusted matched, and target trial emulation with 7887 subjects, to evaluate LBP incidence. Of the 236 patients, 119 developed postoperative LBP. The unadjusted unmatched analysis showed a relative risk (RR) of 2.23(95%CI:1.5–3.2). Adjusting for age, sex, BMI, and recruitment period reduced the RR to 1.64(95%CI:1.0–2.6). Adjusted matched analysis showed an RR of 1.09(95%CI:0.4–3.0), while the target trial emulation simulated an RR of 1.03(95%CI:0.7–1.8), indicating no significant differences. Despite an apparent initial association, adjusted analyses do not support a significant long-term relationship between THA and LBP. No reduction in postoperative LBP incidence was observed, suggesting THA is safe regarding LBP risk but lacks a curative effect. Rigorous confounding adjustment is essential in retrospective studies.