Even the boss doesn't follow the doctor's orders

Feb 26, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Only 68 percent of corporate executives took their cholesterol lowering medication as prescribed by a doctor, a new study shows.

Overall, the executives who took their medication even sporadically were twice as likely to meet their goals. The study finding also questions the prevailing wisdom that income is a primary factor in medication adherence.

University of Michigan researchers studied 1,607 executive level managers at a major financial institution from 1995 to 2004, said Alyssa Schultz, health science research associate at the U-M School of Kinesiology Health Management Research Center, and one of the study authors.

Researchers wanted to discover the rate of medication adherence, and also what happened to cholesterol levels in executives who did or didn't take statins. Statin drugs lower the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, or the so-called bad cholesterol. Statins are proven effective and are a first-line treatment for lowering cholesterol.

Adherence was defined as taking medication as prescribed at least 80 percent of the time. Overall, statin users were twice as likely to meet the near optimal goal of 130 mg/dL or less, than non-statin users. Among executive who took statins, 70 percent achieved the near-optimal goal and 30 percent achieved the optimal goal of 100 mg/dL or less, compared to 55 percent and 21 percent, respectively, for non-statin users who weren't prescribed the drug

Even executives who took their medication sporadically did much better than the non-statin users, Schultz said. "It seems to show that some medication use is better than none, however adherence is associated with the best outcome of all," she said. The executives who actually did adhere to the statin regimen were significantly more likely to achieve their cholesterol goals than those who took the medication sporadically.

Researchers in this study did not look at reasons why the executives did or didn't follow their doctor's orders, but past research on the topic suggests cost is a factor. However, this study population was predominately white male and more highly educated and compensated than more than the average person.

"Many people think cost is the main reason for medication non-adherence but this doesn't appear true since these people have relatively high salaries," said Schultz.

Using statins could actually save money. Previous research on the effectiveness of statin use in a population at high risk for cardiovascular disease found that a health plan with 210,000 covered lives and 9,336 at-risk employees could yield a $1,735 reduction in costs per treated patient.

So what can employers do? Make sure statins are a covered benefit, said Schultz. Do screening to identify at-risk employees. Partner with health care and pharmacy providers to address reasons for poor .

This paper appeared Feb. 24 in Population Health Management. Co-authors include Dee W. Edington and Chin-Yu Chen, both of the HMRC, and Dr. Wayne N. Burton.

Explore further: Counselling has limited benefit on young people drinking alcohol

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Gene Mutations Linked to Statin Resistance

Dec 17, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists at Duke University Medical Center have identified genetic mutations that may help explain why some people don't respond very well to statins, drugs taken by millions of Americans to fight high ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

deatopmg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2010
Maybe those executives are a little more intelligent than the norm and have read enough countervailing information that "high cholesterol" has been a 50 yr scam propagated on the public to make lots of money.

The cholesterol lowering fibrazoles (sp?) of old lowered cholesterol but increased overall mortality. The replacement statins lower cholesterol and reduce overall cardiac events (due to other non-cholesterol lowering, pleotropic effects) but have only a minuscule, if any, effect on overall mortality. Plus, the side effects of statins are wide spread and have been revealed to effect 40 - 45% of those taking them.
The newest drugs like zetia lower cholesterol but appear to increase cardiac events.
So, maybe the executives know something that these U of M researchers don't, or don't want us to know about.
Which brings me to: who payed for for this study?