Get access

Disparities between prescribing of secondary prevention therapies for stroke and coronary artery disease in general practice


  • Conflict of interest: None declared.

  • Funding: E. H., C. A., A. P., A. C., J. C. have received unrestricted educational grant support from Servier Laboratories, Australia for this study. J. C. has also received grant support from Servier for PROGRESS and ADVANCE clinical trials. A. W. is an employee of Servier Australia. A. C., A. P., J. C., C. A. have received speaker fees and travel assistance from Servier Australia for speaking at scientific meetings. E. H. has received travel assistance from Servier Australia to attend a scientific meeting. J. C. is a member of the Servier International Advisory Board.

Emma Heeley*, The George Institute for International Health, PO Box M201, Missenden Rd, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia. E-mail: Facebook: The George Institute for Global Health Twitter: @georgeinstitute


Background Extensive evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of secondary prevention measures in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Aim We aimed to examine the management and risk perceptions of cardiovascular events in people with established cardiovascular disease.

Methods We analyzed data on 1453 patients, ≥55 year old, with a history of cardiovascular disease, from the Australian Hypertension and Absolute Risk Study.

Results Compared with those 533 patients with stroke/transient ischemic attack, the 743 patients with coronary artery disease were twice as likely to have been prescribed secondary prevention therapies even after adjustment for potential confounding variables (adjusted relative risks 1·85; 95% confidence interval 1·56–2·19, 42% vs. 73% for use of the combination of blood pressure-lowering, lipid-lowering and antiplatelet therapies) and to have better control of lipid and blood pressure levels. General practitioners estimated that only 27% of patients with stroke/transient ischemic attack – 38% of those with coronary artery disease and 41% of those with both conditions – were at a high risk (≥15%) of a recurrent event. Patients similarly underestimated their risk of recurrent cardiovascular events, with only 8% of stroke/transient ischemic attack, 11% of coronary and 15% of combination disease patients rating themselves at ‘high’ or ‘very-high’ risk.

Conclusions This study reaffirms the large treatment gap in the uptake of secondary prevention for cardiovascular disease in primary care settings, being much greater for patients with cerebral compared with cardiac cardiovascular disease. This appears to be related to differential perceptions of cardiovascular risk across different vascular territories in both patients and doctors.