Application in general practice of treatment guidelines for patients with dyslipidaemia: the RESPECT study

Effect of physician characteristics and knowledge on the quality of dyslipidemia management and LDL-C target goal achievement in China: Subgroup analysis of the Dyslipidemia International Study

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the effect of physicians’ characteristics and knowledge of LDL–C target goals on the quality of lipid management in China.

Methods

A total of 25 317 dyslipidemia patients who had taken lipid–lowering medication for >3 months were enrolled in our study. Patients’ demographic data, medical history, lipid profile, their physician’s specialty and professional title and their hospital level as well as their LDL–C goal opinions were recorded.

Results

Questionnaires were completed by 926 physicians with 6 different specialties and 4 professional statuses, in 3 different–level hospitals. Most (74.5%) of the physicians recognized the importance of considering LDL–C serum concentration for treating dyslipidemia, and set target LDL–C goals according to the 2007 Chinese guidelines for 83.4% of their patients. The LDL–C goal achievement rate was significantly higher for patients whose physicians’ knowledge of LDL–C target goals was consistent with guideline recommendations, compared with those whose physicians’ knowledge was inconsistent with the guidelines (60.4% vs 31.1%, P < 0.0001). Physicians working in tier 1 (odds ration (OR) = 2.95; 95% CI 2.37–3.67), (OR = 1.56; 95% CI 1.34–1.81) and tier 2 (OR = 2.53; 95% CI 2.22–2.88), (OR = 1.16; 95% CI 1.06–1.27) hospitals, specialized in neurology (OR = 1.13; 95% CI 0.93–1.36), (OR = 1.57; 95% CI 1.40–1.77), internal medicine (OR = 1.07; 95% CI 0.90–1.27), (OR = 1.58; 95% CI 1.39–1.80), endocrinology (OR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.87–1.21), (OR = 1.63; 95% CI 1.47–1.82) and being a resident vs attending physician (OR = 1.05; 95% CI 0.92–1.20), (OR = 1.00; 95% CI 1.00–1.19) were independent risk factors for low knowledge of LDL–C target goals and low LDL–C goal achievement.

Conclusion

Chinese physicians’ characteristics and knowledge of LDL–C target goals were associated with patients’ LDL–C goal achievement.

Influence of cardiovascular absolute risk assessment on prescribing of antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medications: a cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for management of hypertension and lipids recommend using cardiovascular absolute risk (CVAR) to manage patients. This randomized controlled trial investigated the impact of CVAR assessment in family practice on management of cardiovascular risk, including prescription of antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medication.

METHODS

A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted from 2008 to 2010 in Sydney, Australia. Family practices were randomized, and patients aged 45 to 69 years were invited to participate. Intervention family physicians (FP) were trained in use of CVAR, provided with an electronic CVAR calculator, and assessed their patients' absolute risk in a dedicated consultation. Control practice patients received a general health check. Primary outcome analyzed was the proportion of patients in each group on antihypertensive and/or lipid-lowering medication at 12 months. Multilevel logistic regression was performed to explore variables influencing changes in pharmacologic therapy.

RESULTS

The study recruited 36 FPs from 34 practices and 1,074 patients, of which 906 (84.4%) completed 12-month follow-up. At 12 months, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in proportion of patients on antihypertensives (31.2% vs 34.3%, P = .31), but control group patients were more likely to be on lipid-lowering medications (30.2% vs 22.7%, P = .01). After multilevel analysis, this difference was not present. Intensification or reduction of pharmacologic therapy was associated with meeting treatment targets for blood pressure and lipids but not with the CVAR or intervention group.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-risk factor management remains a strong influence on FP prescribing practices. Shifting to an approach based on CVAR will require more intensive intervention.

LDL-cholesterol target values and actual values in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled on oral antidiabetic monotherapy: the lipid results of the French ESCALADE survey

AIM

While new European guidelines have recommended much lower LDL-c target values than current 2005 French HAS guidelines, it appears that even those ones are not widely implemented. This lipid-side of the ESCALADE study was designed to determine the LDL-c target values of GPs, diabetologists (DIABs) and cardiologists (CARDIOs) and the consistency of actual values in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled on antidiabetic monotherapy.

METHODS

ESCALADE was a national multicentre, observational, descriptive, transversal survey. One thousand and three hundred GPs and 350 specialists (DIABs and CARDIOs) agreed to include respectively three and four patients each. For each patient, the physician had to set the LDL-c target value that was compared to the calculated HAS target value. The actual LDL-c value was recorded and compared to those target values.

RESULTS

A total of 412 GPs, 137 DIABs and 27 CARDIOs included respectively 699, 364 and 66 patients. Among them 19.6% had cardiovascular disease (CVD) and 56.9% were on lipid-lowering therapy (LLT). The physician's target value was in concordance with HAS value in 37.3% (GPs), 35.4% (DIABs) and 57.4% (CARDIOs) of the cases. Physicians overestimated the risk in respectively 42.7%, 54.1% and 21.3%. However, very high risk was underestimated in respectively 38.1%, 22.0% and 25.6% of the patients and the actual LDL-c value was in the target range (<100mg/dL) for only 28% of the very high-risk patients.

CONCLUSION

Physicians tend to overestimate the CVD risk in patients with T2D and set lower LDL-c target values than HAS calculated values. Nevertheless, patients with a very high risk are largely under-treated.

Follow-up of a cardiovascular prevention campaign

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cardiovascular risk (CVR) factors and morbidity in a sample of the population that received a brief intervention on cardiovascular prevention seven years ago. All family physicians who participated in the Cardiovascular Prevention Campaign in five Belgian towns in 2002-2003 received a follow-up questionnaire for each participating patient. The questionnaire included questions about new cardiovascular diagnoses, parameters of the latest physical examination and blood tests. Analyses were based on the 318 questionnaires that included essential information such as the date of the latest contact and the new diagnosis or mortality. The proportion of patients with a low CVR decreased from 75% in 2002-2003 to 40% in 2010. Participants showed a significant increase of the abdominal circumference, triglycerides and fasting glycaemia. Only LDL-cholesterol levels decreased significantly (p = 0.002). Four percent of the patients died, more male (7 ) than female (2%) (p = 0.03). One in ten patients presented with a cardiovascular event. Most of the changes are probably attributable to age. It is clear that the long-term effect of a brief intervention only followed by usual care is not sufficient to attain optimal level of cardiovascular prevention.

Perceptions of risk: understanding cardiovascular disease

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is still the leading cause of death and disability worldwide despite the availability of well-established and effective preventive options. Accurate perception of a patient’s risk by both the patient and the doctors is important as this is one of the components that determine health-related behavior. Doctors tend to not use cardiovascular (CV) risk calculators and underestimate the absolute CV risk of their patients. Patients show optimistic bias when considering their own risk and consistently underestimate it. Poor patient health literacy and numeracy must be considered when thinking about this problem. Patients must possess a reasonably high level of understanding of numerical processes when doctors discuss risk, a level that is not possessed by large numbers of the population. In order to overcome this barrier, doctors need to utilize various tools including the appropriate use of visual aids to accurately communicate risk with their patients. Any intervention has been shown to be better than nothing in improving health understanding. The simple process of repeatedly conveying risk information to a patient has been shown to improve accuracy of risk perception. Doctors need to take responsibility for the accurate assessment and effective communication of CV risk in their patients in order to improve patient uptake of cardioprotective lifestyle choices and preventive medications.