Mixed dyslipidemias in primary care patients in France

Laurent Laforest1, Baishali M Ambegaonkar2, Thierry Souchet3, Vasilisa Sazonov2, Eric Van Ganse11Lyon University, Lyon, France; 2Merck and Co Inc, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA; 3Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Paris, FranceObjective: To determine the prevalence of single and mixed dyslipidemias among patients treated with statins in clinical practice in France.Methods: This is a prospective, observational, cross-sectional, pharmacoepidemiologic study with a total of 2544 consecutive patients treated with a statin for at least 6 months.Main outcome measures: Prevalence of isolated and mixed dyslipidemias of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglycerides among all patients and among patients at high cardiovascular risk; clinical variables associated with attainment of lipid targets/normal levels in French national guidelines.Results: At least one dyslipidemia was present in 50.8% of all patients and in 71.1% of high-risk patients. Dyslipidemias of LDL-C, HDL-C, and triglycerides were present in 27.7%, 12.4%, and 28.7% of all patients, respectively, and in 51.0%, 18.2%, and 32.5% of high-risk patients, respectively. Among all subjects with any dyslipidemia, 30.9% had mixed dyslipidemias and 69.4% had low HDL-C and/or elevated triglycerides, while 30.6% had isolated elevated LDL-C; corresponding values for high-risk patients were 36.8%, 58.9%, and 41.1%. Age, gender, body mass index and Framingham Risk Score >20% were the factors significantly associated with attainment of normal levels for ≥2 lipid levels.Conclusions: At least one dyslipidemia persisted in half of all patients and two-thirds of high cardiovascular risk patients treated with a statin. Dyslipidemias of HDL-C and/or triglycerides were as prevalent as elevated LDL-C among high cardiovascular risk patients.Keywords: cholesterol, triglycerides, dyslipidemias, prevalence, treatment outcome, Franc

Analysis of Episodes of Care in Medicare Beneficiaries Newly Diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease

OBJECTIVES: To study transitions between healthcare settings and quantify the cost burdens associated with different combinations of transitions during a 6-month period before initial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) diagnosis so as to investigate how using an episode-of-care approach to payment for specific disease states might apply in AD. DESIGN: A retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 8,995 individuals aged 65 to 100 with a diagnosis of AD (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 331.0) were identified from the Medicare database between January 1, 2011, and June 30, 2014. This analysis identified individuals with AD diagnosed in inpatient (18%), skilled nursing facility (SNF) (1%), hospice (4%), and home and outpatient (77%) settings and analyzed episodes that began in the index setting (defined as the care setting in which the individual was first diagnosed with AD). MEASUREMENTS: Study outcomes included number of transitions between settings, primary discharge diagnoses, and total all-cause healthcare costs during the 6 months after the AD diagnosis. RESULTS: The average numbers of transitions between care settings were 2.8 originating from an inpatient setting, 2.4 from a SNF, 0.3 from a hospice setting and 0.7 from a home or outpatient setting during 6 months post-AD diagnosis. The overall cost burden during the 6 months after AD diagnosis (including costs incurred at the index setting) was high for individuals diagnosed in a nonambulatory setting (mean $41,468). Individuals diagnosed in an ambulatory setting incurred only$12,597 in costs during the same period. CONCLUSION: Episodes of care can be defined and studied in individuals with AD. An episode-of-care approach to payment could encourage providers to use the continuum of care needed for quality medical management in AD more efficiently

Economic Burden, Mortality, and Institutionalization in Patients Newly Diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease

Background: Current information is scarce regarding comorbid conditions, treatment, survival, institutionalization, and health care utilization for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) patients. Objectives: Compare all-cause mortality, rate of institutionalization, and economic burden between treated and untreated newly-diagnosed AD patients. Methods: Patients aged 65–100 years with ≥1 primary or ≥2 secondary AD diagnoses (ICD-9-CM:331.0] with continuous medical and pharmacy benefits for ≥12 months pre-index and ≥6 months post-index date (first AD diagnosis date) were identified from Medicare fee-for-service claims 01JAN2011–30JUN2014. Patients with AD treatment claims or AD/ADrelated dementia diagnosis during the pre-index period were excluded. Patients were assigned to treated and untreated cohorts based on AD treatment received post-index date. Total 8,995 newly-diagnosed AD patients were identified; 4,037 (44.8%) were assigned to the treated cohort. Time-to-death and institutionalization were assessed using Cox regression. To compare health care costs and utilizations, 1 : 1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used. Results: Untreated patients were older (83.85 versus 81.44 years; p \u3c 0.0001), with more severe comorbidities (mean Charlson comorbidity index: 3.54 versus 3.22; p \u3c 0.0001). After covariate adjustment, treated patients were less likely to die (hazard ratio[HR] = 0.69; p \u3c 0.0001) and were associated with 20% lower risk of institutionalization (HR = 0.801; p = 0.0003). After PSM, treated AD patients were less likely to have hospice visits (3.25% versus 9.45%; p \u3c 0.0001), and incurred lower annual all-cause costs ($25,828 versus$30,110; p = 0.0162). Conclusion: After controlling for comorbidities, treated AD patients have better survival, lower institutionalization, and sometimes fewer resource utilizations, suggesting that treatment and improved care management could be beneficial for newly-diagnosed AD patients from economic and clinical perspectives

Non-professional caregiver burden is associated with the severity of patients' cognitive impairment

<div><p>Background/Objectives</p><p>To analyse the relationship between caregiver burden and severity of patients’ cognitive impairment.</p><p>Design</p><p>Data were drawn from the cross-sectional 2015/2016 Adelphi Real World Dementia Disease-Specific Programme.</p><p>Setting</p><p>This research was multi-national and studied physicians and their consulting patients with cognitive impairment.</p><p>Participants</p><p>1,201 caregivers completed self-assessment forms.</p><p>Measurements</p><p>Validated instruments of caregiver wellbeing and burden (EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, EQ-VAS, Zarit Burden Interview, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire) and number of caregiver hours were analysed by severity of patients’ cognitive impairment, categorised according to the Mini-Mental State Examination. Data were analysed using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients and ordinary least squares regression models, to compare outcomes between caregivers of patients with prodromal, mild, moderate, and severe dementia.</p><p>Results</p><p>The majority of caregivers were female (69.1%), lived with the patient they cared for (75.8%), and only approximately one third (28.3%) were in part- or full-time employment. There were statistically significant (p<0.001) increases in caregiver time (36.9 versus 108.6 hours per week for prodromal versus severe dementia, respectively) and measures of caregiver burden and health status (EQ-5D-3L, EQ-VAS, and Zarit Burden Interview) and increases in measures of work productivity and activity impairment with increasing severity of patients’ disease.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>This study of real-world data confirmed an association between increased caregiver burden and severity of patients’ cognitive impairment by analysis of a wide range of validated measures of caregiver burden. These findings suggest that maintaining patients in the earliest stages of their disease for as long as possible may potentially help to protect caregiver wellbeing, although further research is required to confirm this hypothesis.</p></div

Use of guideline-recommended management in established coronary heart disease in the observational DYSIS II study

Abstract Background Guidelines recommend lifestyle modification and medications to control risk factors in coronary heart disease (CHD). Using data from the observational DYSIS II study, we sought to evaluate the use of guideline-recommended treatments at discharge for acute coronary syndromes or in the chronic phase for CHD, and participation in rehabilitation/secondary prevention programs. Methods and results Between 2013 and 2014, 10,661 patients (3867 with ACS, 6794 with stable CHD) were enrolled in 332 primary and secondary care centers in 18 countries (Asia-Pacific, Europe, Middle East/Africa). Patients with incident ACS were younger and more likely to be smokers than patients with recurrent ACS or stable CHD (both p  Conclusions The high prevalence of risk factors in all CHD patients and reduced rates of secondary prevention medications in stable CHD offer areas for improvement. Translational aspects The findings of DYSIS II may reinforce the importance of adopting a healthy lifestyle and prescribing (by clinicians) and adhering (by patients) to evidence-based medications in the management of coronary heart disease, not only during the short-term but also over the longer term after a cardiac ischemic event. The results may help to increase the proportion of ACS patients who are referred to cardiac rehabilitation centres

Prevalence of lipid abnormalities before and after introduction of lipid modifying therapy among Swedish patients with dyslipidemia (PRIMULA)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Data on the prevalence of dyslipidemia and attainment of goal/normal lipid levels in a Swedish population are scarce. The objective of this study is to estimate the prevalence of dyslipidemia and attainment of goal/normal lipid levels in patients treated with lipid modifying therapy (LMT).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This longitudinal retrospective observational study covers time periods before and after treatment. Data were collected from 1994-2007 electronic patient records in public primary healthcare centers in Uppsala County, Sweden. Patients were included if they had been treated with LMT and had at least one lipid abnormality indicating dyslipidemia and if complete lipid profile data were available. Thresholds levels for lipids were defined as per Swedish guidelines.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Among 5,424 patients included, at baseline, the prevalence of dyslipidemia (≥1 lipid abnormality) was by definition 100%, while this figure was 82% at follow-up. At baseline, 60% had elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C) combined with low high-density lipoprotein (HDL-C) and/or elevated triglycerides (TG s), corresponding figure at follow-up was 36%. Low HDL-C and/or elevated TGs at follow-up remained at 69% for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), 50% among patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and 66% among patients with 10 year CHD risk >20%. Of the total sample, 40% attained goal levels of LDL-C and 18% attained goal/normal levels on all three lipid parameters.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Focusing therapy on LDL-C reduction allows 40% of patients to achieve LDL-C goal and helps reducing triglyceride levels. Almost 60% of patients experience persistent HDL-C and/or triglyceride abnormality independently of LDL-C levels and could be candidates for additional treatments.</p

Modelling total coronary heart disease burden and long-term benefit of cholesterol lowering in middle aged men with and without a history of cardiovascular disease

Aims: Cumulative coronary heart disease (CHD) events over 20 years were examined in men screened for, and in those randomized to, the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study. Methods and results: Record linkage provided CHD-related events and days in hospital for the 80 230 screenees, including the randomized cohort of 6595 men. Risk factors were determined at baseline, and disease burden assessed for groups defined by cholesterol. Effects of cholesterol lowering were modelled from differences between groups, and from the treatment arms of the trial. Over 20 years, those without a history of CHD (n = 61 211) had 23.0 events per 100 subjects in the lowest cholesterol group (mean 4.0 mmol/L) and 65.1 per 100 in the highest (8.8 mmol/L). Corresponding days in hospital were 167.2–435.4 per 100 subjects. Analogous figures for men with a CHD history (n = 8570) were 77.3–141.7 events per 100 and 526.1–936.7 hospital days per 100. Lowering cholesterol by about 1.0 mmol/L in men with average cholesterol and no CHD was predicted to be associated with 8.9 fewer events and a saving of 56.0 hospital days per 100. In those with CHD this difference gave, depending on starting level, 26.8–36.5 fewer events and savings of 158.2–247.3 hospital days per 100 subjects. Comparison of cumulative events in 45–54 vs. 55–64 year olds in the trial revealed greater benefit from intervention in the younger decade. Conclusion: Long-term, longitudinal data reveal the considerable CHD burden in middle-aged men and indicate substantial clinical benefits from both moderate and aggressive cholesterol lowering

Physician Practice Patterns Associated with Diagnostic Evaluation of Patients with Suspected Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer’s Disease

The diagnostic process for patients presenting with cognitive decline and suspected dementia is complex. Physicians face challenges distinguishing between normal aging, mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer’s disease, and other dementias. Although there is some evidence for improving attitudes towards the importance of prompt diagnosis, there is limited information describing how physicians approach this diagnostic challenge in practice. This was explored in the present study. Across-sectional survey of primary care and specialist physicians, in 5 European countries, Canada, and the United States, was conducted. Participants were asked about their use of cognitive screening tools and diagnostic technologies, as well as the rationales and barriers for use. In total, 1365 physicians participated in the survey, 63% of whom were specialists. Most physicians stated they use objective cognitive tools to aid the early detection of suspected mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease in patients. The Mini-Mental State Examination was the most common tool used for initial screening; respondents cited speed and ease of use but noted its lack of specificity. Cerebrospinal fluid biomarker and amyloid positron emission tomography tests, respectively, had been used by only 26% and 32% of physicians in the preceding 6 months, although patterns of use varied across countries. The most commonly cited reasons for not ordering such tests were invasiveness (for cerebrospinal fluid biomarker testing) and cost (for amyloid positron emission tomography imaging). Data reported by physicians reveal differences in the approaches to the diagnostics process in Alzheimer’s. A higher proportion of primary care physicians in the United States are routinely incorporating cognitive assessment tools into annual visits, but this is due to country differences in clinical practice. The value of screening tools and regular use could be discussed further with physicians; however, lack of specificity associated with cognitive tools and the investment required from patients and the healthcare system are limiting factors