Current lipid management and low cholesterol goal attainment in common daily practice in Spain. The REALITY Study

Cardiovascular Risk in Patients with Dyslipidemia and Their Degree of Control as Perceived by Primary Care Physicians in a Survey-TERESA-Opinion Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate, through a survey, the opinion of primary care (PC) physicians on the magnitude of dyslipidemia and its degree of control in their clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An ecological study was carried out, in which the physicians were invited to participate by means of an online letter. Data were collected at a single timepoint and were based only on the experience, knowledge, and routine clinical practice of the participating physician.

RESULTS

A total of 300 physicians answered the questionnaire and estimated the prevalence of dyslipidemia between 2% and 80%. They estimated that 23.5% of their patients were high-risk, 18.2% were very high-risk, and 14.4% had recurrent events in the last 2 years. The PC physicians considered that 61.5% of their patients achieved the targets set. The participants fixed the presence of side-effects to statins at 14%. The statin that was considered safest with regard to side-effects was rosuvastatin (69%).

CONCLUSIONS

PC physicians in Spain perceive that the CVR of their patients is high. This, together with the overestimation of the degree of control of LDL-C, could justify the inertia in the treatment of lipids. Moreover, they perceive that one-sixth of the patients treated with statins have side-effects.

[Lipid control in patients with coronary artery disease in a healthcare area in Cáceres (Spain): LIPICERES study]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Current guidelines recommend a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc) target of <70mg/dl for patients with coronary artery disease. Despite the well-established benefits of strict lipid control, the most recent studies show that control rate of lipid targets are alarmingly low. An analysis was performed on the lipid targets attained according to current guidelines for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in coronary patients in a Caceres healthcare area.

METHODS

An observational and cross-sectional study was carried out in a healthcare area in Caceres (Spain). The study included a total of 741 patients admitted for coronary disease between 2009 and 2015 with available lipid profile in the last 3 years Total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLc), triglycerides (TG) and non-HDLc were analysed.

RESULTS

The majority (74.4%) of patients were male, with a mean age of 68.5±13.1 years; 76.3±11.8 for women and 65.8±12.6 for men (P<.001). A total of 52.3% patients achieved the LDLc target of <70mg/dl, with no gender differences. Only 44.8% of the patients <55 years achieved their lipid targets, compared to 59.3% of the patients >75 years. About 68.2% of men had an HDLc>40mg/dl, and 54.8% of women had an HDLc>50mg/dl. Overall, 79.4% of patients had a TG<150mg/dl, with no gender differences, and 59.8% had a non-HDLc<100mg/dl.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one half of patients with coronary disease do not achieve their target lipid levels as defined in the European guidelines, and this rate is less than reported in previous studies. There are no gender differences in achieving lipid goals, and age is a predictor of adherence.

[A pilot study in a community pharmacy to determine the efficiency and the effectiveness of statin prescriptions]

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of statins to reduce LDL-cholesterol serum levels is high, but effectiveness is limited and costs are elevated.

OBJECTIVE

The efficiency and effectiveness of prescriptions were analyzed in a pilot study in a community pharmacy.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

LOCATION

Community pharmacy. Prescriptions from two Murcian Health Service Centers in Lorca, Murcia (Spain).

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 141 patients and 32 general practitioners were included. The efficiency was analyzed in 141 and effectiveness in 110 patients.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

Socio-demographic characteristics and clinical history of patients and information about statin type and dosage were collected. Each patient was analyzed to determine the effectiveness of treatment according to cardiovascular risk and previous LDL-cholesterol level, and efficiency comparing the statin prescribed against other statins with equal pharmacological power.

RESULTS

The most prescribed statin was atorvastatin (57.4%). Almost two-thirds (63.9%) of prescriptions were inefficient, and 17.3% were ineffective. In a bivariate analysis, patients with previous cardiovascular events (8/38; 21% vs 41/103; 39.8%. P=.040) and smokers (42/114; 36.8% vs 4/23; 17.4%, P=.047) were more likely to receive an inefficient prescription than patients with no cardiovascular events and non-smokers. In a multivariate analysis, smokers were more likely to receive an inefficient prescription than non-smokers (OR ajusted 3.76; 95% CI;1.03-0.77, P=.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the participants reached therapeutic objectives for LDL-Cholesterol levels, but more than half of the prescriptions were considered inefficient.

Statin prescription patterns, adherence, and attainment of cholesterol treatment goals in routine clinical care: a Danish population-based study

Purpose

To examine the annual rate and cumulative prevalence of statin use in Denmark 2004–10, including adherence of use and attainment of cholesterol targets.

Methods

We included all individuals aged 18–86 years with a first statin prescription in Northern Denmark in 2004–10. We calculated the annual rate and cumulative prevalence of statin use. We examined cholesterol values before and after start of statins and the proportion reaching targets according to European guidelines and cardiovascular risk group.

Results

The study population consisted of 161,646 new statin users (51% men; median age 62 years). The peak rate of new statin initiators occurred in 2008, and a cumulative prevalence of 94 users per 1,000 population was reached in 2010. In total, 98% of new users started with simvastatin. Eighty-eight percent (142,897) did not switch statin type during follow-up. Overall persistence was 84%. The reduction in median total cholesterol in new statin users was 28% (from 6.3 mmol/L to 4.5 mmol/L), while it was 43% (from 4.0 mmol/L to 2.3 mmol/L) for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Among patients with very high cardiovascular risk, 66% attained the recommended total cholesterol target; corresponding figures were 74% among high-risk patients and 80% among low- to moderate-risk patients. Corresponding figures for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were 54%, 82%, and 88%, respectively.

Conclusions

Statin use has become very prevalent in Danish adults, with high adherence. Cholesterol reduction after statin initiation is similar to that found in clinical trials, yet a substantial proportion of patients does not reach target cholesterol levels.

Achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treatment goals among dyslipidemic individuals in the Levant: the CEntralized Pan-Levant survey on tHE Undertreatment of hypercholeSterolemia (CEPHEUS) study

BACKGROUND

Several studies that evaluated achieving lipid goals have demonstrated an undertreatment of dyslipidemia. We evaluated the use and efficacy of lipid-lowering agents (LLAs) in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) to recommended levels in the Levant region.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A multi-center, cross-sectional survey enrolled 1002 dyslipidemic patients (August 2010 - January 2011) on LLAs for ≥3 months. Collection of data and blood samples was done over one visit. Physicians and patients filled out questionnaires pertaining to dyslipidemia diagnosis and treatment. LDL-C target levels were defined according to international guidelines.

RESULTS

The full analysis set included 992 patients. Mean age was 58.0 ± 11.6 years (41% women, 65.7% diabetics and 51.5% had history of coronary heart disease). LLAs were prescribed for primary prevention or secondary prevention or familial hypercholesterolemia in 45.8% and 52.8% and 1.4% of patients; respectively. Overall, 64.0% and 56.8% of the patients attained their LDL-C goal recommended by the NCEP ATP III and TJETF guidelines, respectively. According to the 2004 NCEP ATP III updated guidelines, about 24.8% of the very high risk group attained their LDL goal of ≤70 mg/dL. Smoking, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, history of cardiovascular disease, increased waist circumference, and elevated pre-treatment LDL-C level were all associated with not reaching LDL-C goals.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the study cohort was a relatively high risk group and might not be representative of the general population, we found that about 60% of enrolled individuals achieved the LDL-C treatment goals and 24.8% of the very high risk group achieved the recommended LDL-C targets of ≤70 mg/dl; national strategies and aggressive awareness campaigns to effectively control lipid levels to recommended target levels, especially in the high risk groups, are urgently needed.

[LDL cholesterol control in patients with very high cardiovascular risk. A simplified algorithm for achieving LDL cholesterol goals "in two steps"]

Reducing low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-c) is the main lipid goal of treatment for patients with very high cardiovascular risk. In these patients the therapeutic goal is to achieve a LDL-c lower than 70 mg/dL, as recommended by the guidelines for cardiovascular prevention commonly used in Spain and Europe. However, the degree of achieving these objectives in this group of patients is very low. This article describes the prevalence of the problem and the causes that motivate it. Recommendations and tools that can facilitate the design of an optimal treatment strategy for achieving the goals are also given. In addition, a new tool with a simple algorithm that can allow these very high risk patients to achieve the goals "in two-steps", i.e., with only two doctor check-ups, is presented.

Therapeutic inertia in hypercholesterolaemia is associated with ischaemic events in primary care patients. A case-control study

BACKGROUND

The frequency of therapeutic inertia (TI) is very high in the management of vascular risk factors, although its impact on the incidence of ischaemic events is not well-established. Our aim was to investigate the relationship between TI in the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia and the appearance of ischaemic events.

METHODS

An observational, multicentre, case-control study was conducted in 70 primary care centres in Spain. Case subjects (n = 235) were high-risk hypercholesterolaemic patients (both genders, ≥ 18 years) who had had a first event in the 12 months prior to recruitment. They were matched with 235 controls (by vascular risk, age and gender). The observation period was 18 months prior to the onset of a first event (cases) or to date of recruitment (control subjects).

RESULTS

The TI in the basal visit (an average of 7.8 months before the event) was slightly higher in cases than in controls (39.7% vs. 34.8%, NS). However, the accumulated TI was similar in both groups (70.7% for cases and 73.95% for controls, NS). The multivariate analysis, taking ischaemic events as the dependent variable, showed that the TI at baseline visit was significantly associated with the development of the event [OR 2.18 (95% CI 1.04-4.51), p < 0.05]. Other variables also associated with the ischaemic event were a family history of premature vascular disease [OR 3.38 (95% CI 1.35-8.49), p < 0.05] and uncontrolled hypertension [OR 2.35 (95% CI 1.02-5.43), p < 0.05].

CONCLUSION

The TI in high-risk hypercholesterolaemic patients in primary prevention in Spanish primary care centres doubled the risk of an ischaemic event in the short term.

Prevalence of atherogenic dyslipidemia in primary care patients at moderate-very high risk of cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular risk perception

INTRODUCTION

Atherogenic dyslipidemia is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease. We aim to determine atherogenic dyslipidemia prevalence in primary care patients at moderate-very high cardiovascular risk and its associated cardiovascular risk perception in Spain.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 1137 primary care patients. Patients had previous cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, SCORE risk ≥ 3, severe hypertension or dyslipidemia. Atherogenic dyslipidemia was defined as low HDL-C (<40 mg/dL [males], <50 mg/dL [females]) and elevated triglycerides (≥ 150 mg/dL). A visual analog scale was used to define a perceived cardiovascular disease risk score.

RESULTS

Mean age was 63.9 ± 9.7 years (64.6% males). The mean BMI was 29.1 ± 4.3 kg/m(2), and mean waist circumference 104.2 ± 12.7 cm (males), and 97.2 ± 14.0 cm (females). 29.4% were smokers, 76.4% had hypertension, 48.0% were diabetics, 24.7% had previous myocardial infarction, and 17.8% peripheral arterial disease. European guidelines classified 83.6% at very high cardiovascular risk. Recommended HDL-C levels were achieved by 50.1% of patients and 37.3% had triglycerides in the reference range. Target LDL-C was achieved by 8.8%. The overall atherogenic dyslipidemia prevalence was 27.1% (34.1% in diabetics). This prevalence in patients achieving target LDL-C was 21.4%. Cardiovascular risk perceived by patients was 4.3/10, while primary care physicians scored 5.7/10.

CONCLUSIONS

When LDL-C levels are controlled, atherogenic dyslipidemia is more prevalent in those patients at highest cardiovascular risk and with diabetes. This highlights the importance of intervention strategies to prevent the residual vascular risk in this population. Both patients and physicians underestimated cardiovascular risk.

[A 6-year evaluation of dyslipidemia in a health center: Importance of improvement actions]

INTRODUCTION

Dyslipidemia, especially an increased LDL-cholesterol, has been shown to be one of the most important risk factors in the genesis of coronary involvement. The prevalence of dyslipidemias in Spain is high. The objective of this study is to assess the progress of dyslipidemic patients in our health center over a 6-year period, and see if there has been any improvement in its control after the presentation of the evaluation of the first 3 years, as well as an updated dyslipidemia protocol.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Assessment Period 1 (2006-2008): 267 patients with dyslipidemia. Assessment Period 2 (2009-2011): 222 patients, excluding exitus and address changes.

VARIABLES

age, sex, personal history of CVD, vascular risk factors, lipids, drug treatment, risk levels, and percentages of CV control objectives.

RESULTS

Mean age was 66.2 years (SD 13.4), 66.3% women. Period 1-Period 2: Total cholesterol: 221.9-196.6 mg/dl (P=.000); LDL-cholesterol: 147.9-115.8 mg/dl (P=.000). In high risk patients, therapeutic targets: 14-50.5% (P=.024); medium risk: 35-68.1% (P=.038); low risk: 44-68.2% (P=NS). Pharmacotherapy 68-77% (P=.000). Changing treatment: 30-43% (P=.001). Adherence: 75-86% (P=.003). Untreated high risk: 15.4-16.3% (P=NS).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant improvement in Period 2, especially in high-risk patients, after presenting the results of the evaluation for Period 1 and with the updated dyslipidemia protocol. There are high risk patients without lipid-lowering treatment to be detected and reviewed.

Attainment of normal lipid levels among high cardiovascular risk patients: pooled analysis of observational studies from the United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain and Canada

BACKGROUND

Although low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is the primary lipid target for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and triglycerides (TG) have also emerged as risk factors. This study evaluated attainment of goal/normal lipid levels in current clinical practice among high-risk patients following lipid-modifying therapy (LMT).

METHODS

Data for patients aged ≥35years and on LMT for ≥12months were identified from electronic medical records (United Kingdom and Sweden) and extracted from medical charts (Canada and Spain). High CVD risk was defined according to the Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. An index period was defined, from January 1995-July 2008, during which patients received an initial LMT prescription. Prevalence of lipid abnormalities was assessed 12months before and after the index date. Multivariate logistic regressions evaluated predictors of attaining goal/normal lipid levels.

RESULTS

Among 12,768 high-risk patients, 75% had elevated LDL-C, 37% low HDL-C, and 30% elevated TG before LMT. Despite therapy (97% statins only), 23% had elevated LDL-C, 36% low HDL-C, 16% elevated TG, and 17% had ≥2 abnormal lipid levels. Framingham risk score >20% (Odds Ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.37,0.31-0.43), diabetes (0.75,0.64-0.88), hypertension (1.26,1.09-1.46), current smoker (0.82,0.70-0.95) and increased body mass index (0.95,0.94-0.96) were associated with the likelihood of attaining ≥2 normal lipid levels (vs. LDL-C goal only).

CONCLUSION

Current approaches to lipid management improve LDL-C goal attainment; however, control of multiple lipid risk factors remains poor. Patients may benefit from more comprehensive approaches to lipid management, which treat multiple lipid abnormalities, as suggested in clinical guidelines.

Risk of cardiovascular disease? A qualitative study of risk interpretation among patients with high cholesterol

Background

Previous studies have shown the importance of paying attention to lay peoples’ interpretations of risk of disease, in order to explain health-related behavior. However, risk interpretations interplay with social context in complex ways. The objective was to explore how asymptomatic patients with high cholesterol interpret risk of cardiovascular disease.

Methods

Fourteen patients with high cholesterol and risk of cardiovascular disease were interviewed, and patterns across patient accounts were identified and analysed from an ethnographic approach.

Results

Information from the general practitioner about high cholesterol and risk of cardiovascular disease was reinterpreted in everyday social life. The risk associated with fatty foods was weighed against the pleasures of social and cultural events in which this type of food was common and cherished.

A positive mindset was applied as a strategy to lower the risk of having high cholesterol, but knowledge about risk was viewed as a cause of anxiety and self-absorption, and this anxiety made the body susceptible to disease, hampering the chances for healthy life.

Conclusion

Interpretations of high cholesterol and risk of cardiovascular disease are embedded in social relations and everyday life concerns. This should be addressed in general practice in preference-sensitive cases about risk-reducing medication.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01187056

[Achievement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol therapeutic goal in lipid and vascular risk units of the Spanish Arteriosclerosis Society]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDLc) goal achievement among dyslipidemic patients treated in lipid and vascular risk units of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis (SEA). The LDLc goal was based on the 2007 European guidelines for cardiovascular prevention.

DESIGN

Observational, longitudinal, retrospective, multicenter national study that included consecutive patients of both sexes over 18 years of age referred for dyslipidemia and cardiovascular risk. Information was collected from medical records corresponding to two visits in the lipid unit.

RESULTS

We included 1,828 patients from 43 lipid units. In the initial visit, 846 (46.3%) patients were on lipid lowering drug treatment. On the follow-up there was a significant increase in the use of cholesterol-lowering agents, except for a decrease in the use of nicotinic acid. 65.3% of patients with vascular disease and 50.4% with diabetes achieved an LDLc level <100mg/dL. Overall, 44.7% of patients achieved the LDLc goal and the predictors in the multivariate analysis were age, waist circumference, diabetes and the presence of vascular disease.

CONCLUSION

Dyslipidemic patients referred to SEA lipid units have improved LDLc goal achievement after follow-up compared with data reported from previous studies in other health care settings. This improvement was associated with a substantial increase in the prescription of statins, both in monotherapy and combined with ezetimibe. There is still a wide room for improvement in the effectiveness of hypercholesterolemia treatment.

[Therapeutic approach to dyslipidemia and goal achievement in a Spanish population with type 2 diabetes without cardiovascular disease]

OBJECTIVE

To assess the therapeutic approach and lipid goal achievement in a spanish diabetic population at high cardiovascular risk.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A multicenter, descriptive, cross-sectional study consecutively recruited the first 10 patients who attended the primary care office and had been seen in the 12 months prior to the study visit. Inclusion criteria were type 2 diabetes without cardiovascular disease, LDL cholesterol levels ≤160mg/dL, triglyceride levels ≤600mg/dL, and at least one of the following: retinopathy, albuminuria, current smoking, or hypertension.

RESULTS

A total of 2412 patients were evaluated (aged 61.3±8.3 years, 46.8% women, diabetes duration 8.6±7.4 years). As compared to the previous visit (8.1±5 months before), the proportion of patients who achieved LDL-C levels <100mg/dL (22.7% vs 28.6%), non-HDL-C levels <130mg/dL (27.7% vs 33.8%) and both goals (17.6% vs 22.1%) significantly increased at the time of assessment. Statins were the most widely prescribed lipid-lowering drugs (65.5%) and the lipid-lowering drug was changed from the previous visit in 38.7% of patients, drug dosage was increased in 17.3%, and another drug was added in 5%.

CONCLUSION

Use of more potent statins and higher statin doses were the most commonly used therapeutic strategies for improving control of dyslipidemia in patients with type 2 diabetes, but these changes were clearly inadequate to achieve lipid goals in most patients with type 2 diabetes.

Translating cholesterol guidelines into primary care practice: a multimodal cluster randomized trial

PURPOSE We wanted to determine whether an intervention based on patient activation and a physician decision support tool was more effective than usual care for improving adherence to National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines. METHODS A 1-year cluster randomized controlled trial was performed using 30 primary care practices (4,105 patients) in southeastern New England. The main outcome was the percentage of patients screened for hyperlipidemia and treated to their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol goals. RESULTS After 1 year of intervention, both randomized practice groups improved screening (89% screened), and 74% of patients in both groups were at their LDL and non-HDL cholesterol goals (P <.001). Using intent-to-treat analysis, we found no statistically significant differences between practice groups in screening or percentage of patients who achieved LDL and non-HDL cholesterol goals. Post hoc analysis showed practices who made high use of the patient activation kiosk were more likely to have patients screened (odds ratio [OR] = 2.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.97-3.27) compared with those who made infrequent or no use. Additionally, physicians who made high use of decision support tools were more likely to have their patients at their LDL cholesterol goals (OR = 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.50) and non-HDL goals (OR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.04-1.46) than low-use or no-use physicians. CONCLUSION This study showed null results with the intent-to-treat analysis regarding the benefits of a patient activation and a decision support tool in improving cholesterol management in primary care practices. Post hoc analysis showed a potential benefit in practices that used the e-health tools more frequently in screening and management of dyslipidemia. Further research on how to incorporate and increase adoption of user-friendly, patient-centered e-health tools to improve screening and management of chronic diseases and their risk factors is warranted.

Long-term efficacy of pitavastatin versus simvastatin

INTRODUCTION

Pitavastatin is a novel, potent, 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor. This study compared the long-term efficacy of pitavastatin and simvastatin in dyslipidemic patients at high risk of coronary heart disease.

METHODS

A 44-week blinded extension study was conducted at 24 centers in five European countries for patients who had previously completed a 12-week randomized, double-blind core study in which they received pitavastatin 4 mg or simvastatin 40 mg once daily. Patients originally randomized to pitavastatin 4 mg continued at the same dose throughout the extension study (n = 121). In simvastatin-treated patients (n = 57), the dose was increased to 80 mg in five patients who had not attained the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) target for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) during the core study. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients attaining the NCEP and European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) LDL-C targets, and the NCEP target for non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) at weeks 16 and 44.

RESULTS

Of the 178 patients who entered the extension study, 156 patients (109 in the pitavastatin group, 47 in the simvastatin groups) completed the 44-week treatment period. At week 44, NCEP and EAS targets were attained by 81.7% and 84.2%, respectively, of pitavastatin-treated patients, and 75.4% and 73.7%, respectively, of simvastatin-treated patients. NCEP targets for non-HDL-C were achieved by 79.2% of pitavastatin-treated patients and 70.2% of simvastatin-treated patients. Both treatments were generally well tolerated, but pitavastatin 4 mg was associated with a numerically lower incidence of discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events (5.8% vs. 10.5% of patients) and a lower rate of myalgia (4.1% vs. 12.3%) compared with simvastatin 40-80 mg.

CONCLUSION

Pitavastatin 4 mg provides long-term efficacy similar to that of simvastatin 40-80 mg. Further studies should ascertain whether trends suggesting that pitavastatin may exhibit a more favorable long-term tolerability profile are statistically significant.

Comparative efficacy of pitavastatin and simvastatin in high-risk patients: a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Despite the proven efficacy of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) in lowering total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), many patients do not reach recommended lipid targets. This study compared pitavastatin, a new and highly effective statin, and simvastatin in patients at high risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority of pitavastatin to simvastatin.

METHODS

The study was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, active-controlled study conducted at 37 centers in five European countries. Following a dietary run-in period of 6-8 weeks, patients with primary hypercholesterolemia or combined dyslipidemia and at least two CHD risk factors were randomized 2:1 to receive pitavastatin 4 mg or simvastatin 40 mg once daily for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the change in LDL-C from baseline.

RESULTS

In total, 355 patients were randomized, 236 to pitavastatin and 119 to simvastatin; 330 patients (223 and 107, respectively) completed the study. In the pitavastatin group, mean (± SD) reduction in LDL-C concentrations from baseline was -44.0 ± 12.8% compared with -43.8 ± 14.4% in the simvastatin group. The adjusted mean treatment difference (simvastatin--pitavastatin) was 0.31% (95% confidence interval -2.47, 3.09; P = 0.829), which was within the predefined noninferiority range. More than 80% of patients in each group reached recommended LDL-C targets. Pitavastatin provided a greater increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C; 6.8% vs. 4.5%; P = 0.083) and a significantly greater decrease in triglycerides (-19.8% vs. -14.8%; P = 0.044) than simvastatin. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Pitavastatin 4 mg is as effective as simvastatin 40 mg in lowering LDL-C in dyslipidemic patients at high risk of CHD, with additional effects on HDL-C and triglycerides. Therefore, pitavastatin may be appropriate for the management of dyslipidemic patients at high cardiovascular risk.

Begin with the real-world patients of non-goal-achieved hypercholesterolemia in taiwan through the ezetimibe/simvastatin tablet - The BRAVO Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a combination of 10 mg ezetimibe and 20 mg simvastatin in Taiwanese patients with hypercholesterolemia.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A prospective, open-label, multi-center, hospital-based cohort study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a single tablet combination of ezetimibe/simvastatin for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. Taiwanese adults without low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal achievement, based on the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines, were treated with ezetimibe/simvastatin once daily for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving LDL-C treatment goals after 6 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints included percentage change from baseline of LDL-C, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglyceride. Safety and tolerability were assessed via clinical and laboratory examinations. The clinicaltrial.gov identifier of this study was NCT00654628.

RESULTS

In total, 173 patients with a mean age of 57.9 ± 10.4 years were included. Of these, 57.8% were female and the average body mass index was 25.5 ± 3.4 kg/m(2). After 6 weeks of treatment, the great majority of the patients had reached their treatment goals (90.4% for LDL-C; 87% for TC; and 59% for TG). LDL-C levels were significantly reduced from 156.8 ± 30.8 mg/dL at baseline to 75.9 ± 25.4 mg/dL (51.4%, P < 0.0001) after only 6 weeks of therapy. Forty-nine adverse events (AEs), including one non-drug related serious AE, were reported. For non-serious AEs, the most common reported AEs during the entire study period were myalgia and upper respiratory infection (both n = 7). Nine patients dropped out of the study, reportedly due to AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

A single tablet combination of 10 mg ezetimibe and 20 mg simvastatin in Taiwanese patients with hypercholesterolemia provided high LDL-C goal attainment rates and resulted in significant reductions in LDL-C.

Therapeutic inertia in the outpatient management of dyslipidemia in patients with ischemic heart disease. The inertia study

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Studies indicate that dyslipidemia is undertreated. Numerous systematic reviews have shown that, even when therapeutic targets set by clinical practice guidelines have not been met, treatment remains unchanged despite the availability of alternatives approaches. The result is increased morbidity and mortality. Our aims were to investigate this phenomenon, known as therapeutic inertia, in patients with dyslipidemia and ischemic heart disease, and to determine its possible causes.

METHODS

DESIGN

national, multicenter, observational study of data obtained from physicians by questionnaire and from the clinical records of patients with ischemic heart disease. Main variable: therapeutic inertia during a consultation, defined as treatment remaining the same despite a change being indicated (e.g. low-density lipoprotein cholesterol >100 mg/dl or >70 mg/dl in diabetics). Covariates: physician, patient and consultation characteristics.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

multivariate logistic regression analysis of factors associated with therapeutic inertia during a consultation.

RESULTS

Overall, 43% of consultations involved therapeutic inertia, and an association with coronary risk factors, including diabetes, did not result in a change in treatment. Therapeutic inertia occurred more frequently when there was a long time between the diagnosis and treatment of dyslipidemia and that of ischemic heart disease. Undertreatment was particularly common in women despite a greater overall risk. The more experienced physicians treated younger patients more appropriately. Clinical practice was improved by educational sessions at conferences.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic inertia was common in patients with chronic ischemic heart disease and dyslipidemia, irrespective of overall cardiovascular risk. Factors associated with the patient, disease and physician had an influence.

Coronary heart disease and dyslipidemia: a cross-sectional evaluation of prevalence, current treatment, and clinical control in a large cohort of Spanish high-risk patients: the PRINCEPS study

The authors assessed a large cohort of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) or at high risk for developing CHD in terms of lipid profile, lipid-lowering treatment, and attainment of National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. The investigation was a cross-sectional study involving Spanish outpatients treated in primary or secondary care facilities. From a total of 26,598 attending patients, 12,128 with CHD or CHD risk equivalents were recruited by 1875 physicians; 49% had CHD and 69% had multiple risk factors. Only 25% of patients attained LDL-C values <100 mg/dL, 76.6% patients received lipid-lowering therapy (statins in 95.4% of cases), and 54% of physicians considered that a treatment change was required (the most frequent choice was the addition of ezetimibe to current statin therapy). In this large cohort of high-risk coronary patients, only 25% attained a target LDL-C of <100 mg/dL. These results highlight a need for improved patient care and physician awareness/training.

Implementation of strategy for the management of overt dyslipidemia: the IMPROVE-dyslipidemia study

BACKGROUND

To assess the efficacy of a strategy aimed at improving vascular risk management in patients with dyslipidemia with or without cardiovascular disease (CVD).

METHODS

This is a pilot implementation enhancement program that was evaluated in 1127 patients with dyslipidemia. There was a baseline visit, followed by a concerted effort from previously trained physicians to improve adherence to lifestyle advice and optimize drug treatment for all vascular risk factors. After 6 months the patients were re-evaluated. The PROspective-Cardiovascular-Munster (PROCAM) and Framingham trials risk engines were used to estimate CVD risk in primary prevention patients (n=609).

RESULTS

This strategy induced a better compliance to lifestyle measures and use of evidence-based medication, focusing on statins. This resulted in a 45% (Framingham) to 63% (PROCAM) reduction in estimated CVD risk in primary prevention (both p<0.0001). There was also a substantial increase in the proportion of secondary prevention patients (n=518) achieving CVD risk factor targets (from 29% at baseline to 76% at 6 months, p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to increase the adherence to multiple interventions in patients with dyslipidemia, and other CVD risk factors, in both primary care and teaching hospital settings. Simple measures, such as educating physicians and patients, distributing printed guidelines and brochures, and completing a 1-page form, motivated physicians and patients to achieve multiple CVD risk factor goals.

Maintenance of improved lipid levels following attendance at a cardiovascular risk reduction clinic: a 10-year experience

Background:

Specialty cardiovascular risk reduction clinics (CRRC) increase the proportion of patients attaining recommended lipid targets; however, it is not known if the benefits are sustained after discharge. We evaluated the impact of a CRRC on lipid levels and assessed the long-term effect of a CRRC in maintaining improved lipid levels following discharge.

Methods:

The medical records of consecutive dyslipidemic patients discharged ×6 months from a tertiary hospital CRRC from January 1991 to January 2001 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome was the change in patients’ lipid levels between the final CRRC visit and the most recent primary care follow-up. A worst-case analysis was conducted to evaluate the potential impact of the patients in whom the follow-up lipid profiles post-discharge from the CRRC were not obtained.

Results:

Within the CRRC (median follow-up = 1.28 years in 1064 patients), we observed statistically significant improvements in all lipid parameters. In the 411 patients for whom post-discharge lipid profiles were available (median follow-up = 2.41 years), there were no significant differences observed in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, total cholesterol (TC), or triglycerides since CRRC discharge; however, there were small improvements in high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) and TC:HDL ratio (p < 0.05 for both). The unadjusted worst-case analysis (653 patients with no follow-up lipid profiles) demonstrated statistically significant worsening of all lipid parameters between CRRC discharge and the most recent follow-up. However, when the change in lipid parameters between the baseline and the most recent follow-up was assessed in this analysis, the changes in all lipid parameters were significantly improved (p < 0.05).

Conclusions:

This study demonstrates that a CRRC can improve lipid levels and suggests that these benefits are sustained once patients are returned to the care of their primary physician.

Current status of cholesterol goal attainment after statin therapy among patients with hypercholesterolemia in Asian countries and region: the Return on Expenditure Achieved for Lipid Therapy in Asia (REALITY-Asia) study

BACKGROUND

Data on achieving National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) goals in Asia are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To examine treatment patterns, goal attainment, and factors influencing treatment among patients in 6 Asian countries who were taking statins.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in China, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand, where 437 physicians (41% cardiologists) recruited adults with hypercholesterolemia newly initiated on statin monotherapy.

RESULTS

Of 2622 patients meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria, approximately 66% had coronary heart disease (CHD)/diabetes mellitus, 24% had no CHD but > or =2 risk factors, and 10% had no CHD and <2 risk factors. Most patients ( approximately 90%) received statins at medium or lower equipotency doses. Across all cardiovascular risk categories, 48% of patients attained ATP III targets for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), including 38% of those with CHD/diabetes (goal: <100 mg/dL), 62% of those without CHD but with > or =2 risk factors (goal: <130 mg/dL), and 81% of those without CHD and <2 risk factors (goal: <160 mg/dL). Most patients who achieved goals did so within the first 3 months. Increasing age (odds ratio (OR)=1.015 per 1-year increment; 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.005-1.206; p=0.0038) and initial statin potency (OR=2.253; 95% CI=1.364-3.722; p=0.0015) were directly associated with goal attainment, whereas increased cardiovascular risk (OR=0.085; 95% CI=0.053-0.134; p<0.0001 for CHD/diabetes mellitus at baseline compared with <2 risk factors,) and baseline LDL-C (OR=0.990; 95% CI=0.987-0.993); p<0.0001 per 1-mg/dL increment) were inversely associated with LDL-C goal achievement. Limitations of this study include potential differences in treatment settings and cardiovascular risk factors between different countries and centers. In addition, the effects on cholesterol goal achievement of concomitant changes in lifestyle were not assessed.

CONCLUSION

LDL-C goal attainment is low in Asians, particularly those with CHD/diabetes. More effective patient monitoring, treatments, including combining regimens and dose titration, and adherence to these treatments along with therapeutic lifestyle counseling may facilitate goal attainment.

Cholesterol goal attainment in patients with coronary heart disease and elevated coronary risk: results of the Hong Kong hospital audit study

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine 1) long-term lipid-lowering treatment patterns; 2) cholesterol goal attainment rates and possible determinants of goal achievement; and 3) effects of cholesterol goal attainment on coronary events in hospitalized Hong Kong patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort analysis, records of two public Hong Kong hospitals were reviewed for 196 adults (69% with coronary heart disease (CHD) or CHD-risk equivalent) who received at least one lipid-lowering therapy during hospitalization. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets were <2.6 mmol/l (<100 mg/dL) for patients with CHD or CHD risk equivalents and <3.37 mmol/l (<130 mg/dL) for those without.

RESULTS

Most participants were initiated on regimens of low to midequipotency doses and never had their regimens adjusted to higher potency. Approximately 44% of patients not at LDL-C at baseline failed to achieve goal during a median follow-up of 1.9 years. Patients with higher coronary risk and/or LDL-C levels at baseline were less likely than their lower-risk counterparts to achieve goal; for each 1-mmol/l (38.7-mg/dL) increase in LDL-C at baseline, the likelihood of attaining goal declined by 64%. Patients achieving cholesterol goal had significantly longer cardiovascular event-free times.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 44% of Hong Kong patients not at LDL-C goals at baseline did not achieve them over 1.9 years. More effective and well-tolerated therapies, including adjunctive regimens (e.g., ezetimibe-statin, niacin-statin), may be necessary to enhance LDL-C goal achievement and increase event-free time.

Correlates of LDL-cholesterol goal attainment in patients under lipid lowering therapy

BACKGROUND

LDL-cholesterol therapeutic objectives attainment under lipid lowering therapy remains inadequate. The correlates of LDL-cholesterol therapeutic objective attainment have not been thoroughly explored in an observational setting.

METHODS

Patients under lipid lowering therapy and managed by general practitioners were included. LDL-cholesterol therapeutic objective was defined according to the number of cardiovascular risk factors associated with dyslipidemia (AFSSAPS-2005 guidelines).

RESULTS

Most of the 2727 patients (mean age: 64.7+/-11.0) received a statin (70.0%) or a fibrate (24.3%) in monotherapy. 58.5% of patients at high cardiovascular risk did not reach therapeutic objective. Compared to simvastatin, patients receiving fibrates were less likely to be at therapeutic objective (OR=0.38, 95% CI=[0.26-0.54]). So were patients receiving fluvastatin (OR=0.41, IC95%=[0.26-0.64]) or pravastatin (OR=0.49, IC95%=[0.35-0.70]) at the dosages used by GPs. No significant difference appeared with atorvastatin (OR=0.99, 95% CI=[0.71-1.39]) or rosuvastatin (OR=1.25, CI95%=[0.77-2.02]). Patients with LDL-cholesterol levels<0.7 g/L tended to be prescribed high doses of lipid lowering therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In real conditions of lipid lowering therapy use, LDL-cholesterol therapeutic objective attainment was inadequate in high-risk patients, and TO differences were observed between drugs at prescribed doses.

[Therapy compliance in cases of hyperlipaemia, as measured through electronic monitors. Is a reminder calendar to avoid forgetfulness effective?]

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the efficacy of the intervention with a calendar reminder of the medication taking in the treatment of the hyperlipidemias.

DESIGN

Controlled, randomised clinical trial.

SETTING

Twelve clinics at 5 primary care centres, Spain.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred and twenty people diagnosed with hypercholesterolaemia according to Spanish Consensus criteria were chosen.

INTERVENTION

Two groups were formed. The control group (CG) of 110 patients, who received the doctor's normal treatment; and the Intervention group (IG) of 110 patients, who received in addition a calendar remider of medication taking.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

Meausured of compliance was performed by moniotrs electronic (MEMS) and cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL-C, and LDL-C determined at the start, and at the third and sixth months. Percentages of patients complying (80%-110%), the mean compliance percentage and the degree of control were compared. The reduction of absolute and relative risk (RAR and RRR) and the mean number of people that required an intervention in order to avoid non-compliance (NI) were calculated.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty eight people (85.45%) completed the survey, 96 in the IG and 92 in the CG; 26.55% were non compliers with the therapy (CI, +/-6.3%) (IG, 10.5%, CI, +/-4.6%; CG, 42.6%, CI, +/-10.1% [P<.0001]). Mean compliance ran at 88,1% (IC, +/-4.6%) overall, at 92% (CI, +/-5.4%) in the IG and at 84% (CI, +/-7.4%) in the IG (P<.05). The RAR was 32.1%, the RRR 75.35%, and the NI was 3.1 patients. The patients with cholesterol controlled ran at 66.7% (CI, +/-9.4%) in the IG and 41.2% in the CG (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The calendar reminder intervention is an efficacious way of improving the percentage of patients complying with lipaemia treatment.

[Diabetes mellitus in hypertensive population attended in Primary Care in Spain. Blood pressure and lipid control rates]

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

The aim of this study was to determine the blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c) control rates of hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus attended in primary care setting in Spain, and to compare the data with those of the hypertensive population without diabetes. For this purpose, we analyzed the subset of diabetic patients of those included in the PRESCOT study (a cross-sectional survey of hypertensive subjects > 18 years attended in primary care). 12,954 patients (49.9% females; 62.1 +/- 10.7 years) were included in the PRESCOT study. Good controls were considered blood pressure < 130/80 mmHg (according to European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology [ESH-ESC] guidelines) and LDL-c < 100 mg/dl (National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel III [NCEP-ATP III]).

RESULTS

Overall, 3868 (29.9%) of PRESCOT patients were diabetics (mean age 64.2 +/- 9.8 years; 47.5% males). Almost all the diabetic patients (98.5%) were taking some drug besides the antidiabetic treatment and 84.9% were taking at least 2 drugs. Although diabetic patients were treated with more antihypertensive medication than those without diabetes (48.75% vs 40.85% were on > 2 drugs, p < 0.001), blood pressure control was much lower in diabetics (6.3% vs 32.7%, p < 0.0001). In the same way, LDL-c control was also lower in these patients (12.0% vs 31.9%, p < 0.0001). Only 1.0% of diabetic hypertensives were well controlled for both risk factors (vs 11.9% of non-diabetics, p < 0.0001). Predictors of bad blood pressure control were sedentarism and presence of associated clinical conditions, and for lipid control the younger age, female gender, overweight, alcoholism and non-use of lipid-lowering agents.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of diabetes in hypertensive population attended in Spanish primary health care is frequent. One out of every three hypertensives who attend the outpatient clinic daily is diabetic. Even though more drugs are prescribed in these patients, blood pressure and LDL-c control rates are significantly lower than in patients without diabetes. In the daily practice of primary care setting, almost no diabetic hypertensive subject is well controlled for blood pressure and LDL-c.

Blood pressure and lipid goal attainment in the hypertensive population in the primary care setting in Spain

Although blood pressure (BP) control is crucial in hypertensive patients, clinical practice guidelines agree that the goal of treatment should be aimed at not only decreasing BP but reducing global cardiovascular risk. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate BP, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and composite control rates in a hypertensive population in a primary care setting in Spain. Good BP control was defined as <140/90 mm Hg (<130/80 mm Hg for diabetics).LDL-C control rate was established according to the third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel criteria. A total of 12,954 patients (49.9% women, aged 62.1+/-10.7 years) were included. BP was controlled in 24.8% of patients, LDL-C in 26% of patients and, when combined, in only 8.6%. The rates of control were significantly worse in high-risk subgroups, such as high-coronary-risk, diabetic, or metabolic syndrome patients. The BP and LDL-C control rates in the hypertensive population attended to daily in primary care settings in Spain are low.

Lipid-modifying therapy and attainment of cholesterol goals in Hungary: the return on expenditure achieved for lipid therapy (REALITY) study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death in Eastern Europe. Few studies on cholesterol goal achievement have been conducted in Hungarian clinical settings. This study set out to evaluate lipid-modifying therapy practices and their effects on total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal attainment in Hungarian patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), CHD risk equivalents, or >or=2 coronary risk factors.

METHODS

This multicentre observational study involved patients receiving lipid-modifying therapy who were under the care of general practitioners (n = 300) or specialists (n = 140). Physician questionnaires were used to collect data on baseline patient characteristics, including laboratory parameters. Using validated cardiovascular risk assessment measures, patients were stratified into high-risk (10-year absolute coronary risk >20%; n = 367) and lower risk groups (n = 73). Cholesterol goals were TC <4.5 mmol/L (<175 mg/dL) and LDL-C <2.5 mmol/L (<100 mg/dL) for the high-risk group and TC <5.0 mmol/L (<193 mg/dL) and LDL-C <3.0 mmol/L (<117 mg/dL) for those at lower risk.

RESULTS

Among 440 patients (n = 312 with CHD or CHD risk equivalents), 374 (85%) were initiated on HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statin monotherapy), 44 (10%) received fibric acid derivatives and 22 (5%) received combination regimens. Although >50% of patients needed >35% TC lowering to reach goal, <10% of patients received high or very high potency lipid-modifying regimens or combination regimens initially. A total of 116 (26.4%) patients achieved their TC goals after >/=1 year of treatment, including 27.9% of patients with CHD/risk equivalents and 22.7% of those with risk factors only. Sixty-six (15%) patients achieved goal on initial lipid-modifying regimens, while a further 50 (11.4%) achieved goal following treatment changes, including upward dosage adjustments.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 74% of Hungarian patients receiving lipid-modifying therapy in our study did not achieve cholesterol goals. The proportion of patients realising their TC goals was higher in those treated by specialists but still did not exceed one-third.

[Blood pressure and lipid control and coronary risk in the hypertensive population attended in Primary Care setting in Spain. The PRESCOT study]

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

The aim of this cross-sectional and multicenter study was to determine the coronary risk of hypertensive patients attended in Spanish Primary Care and to evaluate whether blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c) control rates could change according to the ATP-III risk groups. Good blood pressure control was considered <140/90 mmHg (<130/80 mmHg for diabetics) and LDL-c according to the established by ATP-III for every risk group.

RESULTS

A total of 12,954 patients were included in the study (49.9 % women, mean age 62.1+/-10.7 years). Of these, 12.6% belonged to the group of low risk, 45% to the medium risk group and 42.4% to the high risk group. The control rates were different according to the risk group (p <0.0001). Blood pressure control: 37.5 % in low risk, 30.2 % in medium and 15.4 % in high risk group. LDL-c control: 65.6 % in low risk group, 28 % in medium risk group and 12.3 % in high risk group. Only 25.8 % of the patients of low risk were controlled for both blood pressure and LDL-c, 9.6 % of medium risk group and 2.7 % of high risk group.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of hypertensive patients daily attended in Primary Care setting in Spain belongs to the medium or high coronary risk groups. Blood pressure and LDL-c controls rates in hypertensive population are low, and very few patients have both risk factors controlled. The control rates decline when the risk increases. In fact, less than 3% of high-risk patients have both parameters well controlled, what may result in significant clinical implications.

Prevalence and treatment of dyslipidemia in Canadian primary care: a retrospective cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

Dyslipidemia is an important modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Studies suggest that dyslipidemia is underdiagnosed and undertreated in Canada.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe dyslipidemia prevalence, patient characteristics, and lipid-lowering treatment (LLT) patterns in a cohort representing Canadian primary care practice.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort analysis, the Southwestern Ontario database (which comprises data from >150,000 adult patients in rural and urban primary care practices) was used as the data source. Male and female patients with data available from 4 physician visits were included; data were captured quarterly between April 2000 and December 2003 and included demographic and lifestyle information, CVD risk factors, and cardiovascular drug treatments. Data gathered included clinical diagnoses at each visit, symptoms corroborating the diagnoses, clinical data (eg, blood pressure, smoking status, height, weight, fitness level), medications (including name, dose, duration, and quantity prescribed), and diagnostic test results and laboratory analyses. For the purposes of this study, a patient was considered to have dyslipidemia if >/=1 of the following conditions was met: (1) physician-diagnosed hyperlipidemia or hypercholes terolemia; (2) at least 1 measurement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) or total cholesterol: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (TC:HDL-C) ratio greater than the recommended targets based on 10-year coronary artery disease (CAD) risk; and/or (3) at least 1 prescription for a lipid-lowering drug.

RESULTS

A total of 49,667 patients were included in the study cohort. Dyslipidemia was identified in 6961 (14.0%) patients. Of patients with dyslipidemia, more were untreated (63.2%) than treated (36.7%) with LLTs, with women receiving treatment less often than men (P < 0.001). Of those treated, 47.2% had disease that was not adequately controlled, with fewer treated women having controlled disease than treated men (P < 0.017). Patients with dyslipidemia fell mostly into very-high-risk (45.7%) or low-risk (31.1 %) categories for CAD. A total of 73.0% of treated patients were prescribed monotherapy with a 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor (statin); of starin prescriptions, most were for atorvastatin (51.8%) or simvastatin (29.4%). Initial LDL-C levels and initial TC:HDL-C ratios were statistically similar between patients prescribed atorvastatin and those prescribed simvastatin.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of this retrospective cohort analysis, dyslipidemia prevalence in Canadian primary care is high, and despite clinical evidence and treatment guidelines, dyslipidemia is largely untreated in family practice, suggesting a gap in care.

Achievement of optimal combined lipid values in a managed care setting: Is a new treatment paradigm needed?

BACKGROUND

Published guidelines suggest the management of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and triglyceride (TG) values after the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal is achieved.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the attainment of optimal combined lipid values (LDL-C, HDL-C, and TGs) and associated therapy over time.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort analysis was conducted among managed-care patients who had a baseline lipid panel taken between October 1, 1999, and September 30, 2000; were naive to lipid therapy; and had plan eligibility for at least 12 months before and 12 to 36 months after the baseline lipid values. Patients were categorized as elevated-risk primary prevention (ERP) or as coronary heart disease (CHD) and CHD risk equivalents (CHD-RE). The attainment of optimal combined lipid values was assessed at baseline and quarterly thereafter. Associations between lipid values and the use of lipid-altering therapy were assessed using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 30,348 patients were monitored for a mean (SD) duration of 27 (8) months. Mean (SD) age was 66 (12) years and 55% (16,549/30,348) were men; 43% (13,059/30,348) were categorized as ERP and 57% (17,289/30,348) as CHD-RE. Combined lipid values were optimal in 14% (4167/30,348),18% (5508/30,348), and 22% (2936/13,100) of patients at baseline, 12 months, and 36 months, respectively. After 36 months, 78% (10,164/13,100) of patients did not attain optimal combined lipid values. Lipid therapy, primarily statin monotherapy (87% [7992/ 92251), was prescribed in 30% (9225/30,348) of patients. After 36 months, 34% (4492/13,100) of patients had isolated elevated LDL-C and 20% (2588/13,100) had non-optimal HDL-C and/or TGs. Lipid therapy was associated with the attainment of optimal combined values for LDL-C and TGs (both, P < 0.05), but not for HDL-C. Because the study was retrospective, causality cannot be determined.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this study, use of combination lipid therapy and targeted therapy aimed at the specific lipid abnormalities may increase the attainment of optimal lipid parameters.

[Lipid lowering goals in high risk and very high cardiovascular risk patients: a reasonable challenge?]

OBJECTIVE

The last modifications of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) indicate some lower therapeutic targets of low density protein cholesterol (LDL-c) in patients with very high vascular risk. Our study aims to establish the degree of compliance of the therapeutic targets defined by these modifications.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

Descriptive and cross sectional study of patients from a cardiovascular clinic. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) was calculated and targets were established according the new update of NCEP-ATP III.

RESULTS

836 patients, 625 (75%) with HR and 211(25%) with VHR were studied 45% of HR and 67% of VHR were receiving treatment with statins (p < 0.001) but only 38% of HR and 15% of VHR achieved target LDL-c levels. The percentage of patients who could achieve LDL-goals using the maximum approved dose of the statins plus other lipid lowering drug was calculated: The 31% of HR and 51% of VHR were unable to achieve the LDL-c targets.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 15% of very high risk patients achieve target levels of LDL-c according to the new NCEP-ATP III recommendations. Even using maximum dose of statins in combination with other lipid lowering drugs, less than half of the patients will be able to achieve LDL-c goal (< 70 mg/dl).

Ezetimibe/simvastatin (INEGY) in the treatment of hyperlipidaemia

Ezetimibe/simvastatin (INEGY), a dual inhibitor of both cholesterol production and absorption, is a new approach to the management of hyperlipidaemia. Recent studies have shown that it produces greater reductions in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol than the single inhibition of statin therapy, enabling many more patients to achieve their LDL cholesterol treatment goals. With ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy, reductions of up to 61% from baseline have been seen in LDL cholesterol, with clear improvements in other associated lipid fractions. It has been well tolerated across all studies, with a safety profile similar to that of statin therapy. This article will review clinical experience to date with ezetimibe/simvastatin, commenting upon its place and potential value in the prevention of cardiovascular disease.