Dyslipidemias: a pending challenge in cardiovascular prevention. Consensus document from CEIPC/SEA Committee

Documento presentado en el XXXI Congreso Nacional de la Sociedad Española de Medicina Interna (SEMI). Oviedo, 18 de noviembre de 2010.En España, donde la enfermedad cardiovascular (ECV) es la primera causa de muerte, aproximadamente el 20% de los adultos presentan hipercolesterolemia, de los cuales sólo el 12% estarían controlados. El abordaje de las dislipemias debe realizarse en un contexto más amplio, mediante acciones encaminadas a reducir el riesgo cardiovascular (RCV). La medición del RCV facilita la toma de decisiones, pero no puede sustituir al juicio clínico, dadas las limitaciones de los métodos de cálculo disponibles. Este documento, elaborado por el Comité Español Interdisciplinar de Prevención Cardiovascular, a iniciativa de la Sociedad Española de Arteriosclerosis, describe las principales iniciativas en prevención cardiovascular de administraciones sanitarias y sociedades científicas, y el papel que juegan en ellas los profesionales sanitarios. Además de apoyar las iniciativas en marcha, se propone la puesta en marcha de una estrategia nacional de prevención cardiovascular, centrada en la modificación de estilos de vida (prevención del tabaquismo y promoción de la alimentación saludable y la actividad física) mediante acciones en todos los ámbitos. A nivel poblacional, la regulación de la publicidad alimentaria, la eliminación de los ácidos grasos trans y la reducción de azúcares añadidos en la cadena alimentaria constituyen intervenciones viables y coste-efectivas para ayudar a controlar las dislipemias y reducir el RCV. En el ámbito sanitario, se propone reducir las barreras para la aplicación de las guías, mejorar la formación de los profesionales en modificación de estilos de vida e incorporar la valoración del RCV entre los indicadores de calidad de la asistencia. Las sociedades científicas son responsables de colaborar con la administración y contribuir a la generación del conocimiento, su transmisión y su aplicación. Finalmente, está en manos de los profesionales evaluar al paciente dislipémico en el contexto del RCV, promover estilos de vida saludables y hacer un uso eficiente del arsenal terapéutico disponible. In Spain, where cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death, hypercholesterolemia, one of the most prevalent risk factors in adults, is poorly controlled. Dyslipidemia should not be approached in isolation, but in the context of overall cardiovascular risk (CVR). Measurement of CVR facilitates decision making, but should not be the only tool nor should it take the place of clinical judgment, given the limitations of the available calculation methods. This document, prepared by the Interdisciplinary Spanish Committee on Cardiovascular Prevention, at the proposal of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis, reviews the cardiovascular prevention activities of the regional health authorities, scientific societies and medical professionals. An initiation of a national strategy on cardiovascular prevention is proposed based on lifestyle modification (healthy diet, physical activity and smoking cessation) through actions in different settings. At the population level, regulation of food advertising, elimination of trans fats and reduction of added sugar are feasible and cost-effective interventions to help control dyslipidemias and reduce CVR. In the health setting, it is proposed to facilitate the application of guidelines, improve training for medical professionals, and include CVR assessment among the quality indicators. Scientific societies should collaborate with the health authorities and contribute to the generation and transmission of knowledge. Finally, it is in the hands of professionals to apply the concept of CVR, promote healthy lifestyles, and make efficient use of available pharmacological treatments

Statement of the Spanish Interdisciplinary Cardiovascular Prevention Committee (CEIPC ) on the 2012 European Cardiovascular Prevention Guidelines

Las guías europeas de prevención cardiovascular contemplan dos sistemas de evaluación de la evidencia (SEC y GRADE) y recomiendan combinar las estrategias poblacional y de alto riesgo, interviniendo en todas las etapas de la vida, con la dieta como piedra angular de la prevención. La valoración del RCV incorpora los niveles de HDL y los factores psicosociales, una categoría de muy alto riesgo y el concepto edad-riesgo. Se recomienda e luso de métodos cognitivo-conductuales (entrevistamotivadora, intervenciones psicológicas), aplicados por profesionales sanitarios, con la participación de familiares de los pacientes, para contrarrestar el estrés psicosocial y reducir el RCV mediante dietas saludables, entrenamiento físico, abandono del tabaco y cumplimiento terapéutico. También se requieren medidas de salud pública, como la prohibición de fumar en lugares públicos o eliminar los ácidos grasos trans de la cadena alimentaria. Otras novedades consisten en desestimar el tratamiento antiagregante en prevención primaria y la recomendación de mantener la PA dentro del rango13-139/80-85 mmHg en pacientes diabéticos o con RCV alto. Se destaca el bajo cumplimiento terapéutico observado, porque influye en el pronóstico de los pacientes y en los costes sanitarios. Para mejorar la prevención cardiovascular se precisa una verdadera alianza entre políticos, administraciones, asociaciones científicas y profesionales de la salud, fundaciones de salud, asociaciones de consumidores, pacientes y sus familias, que impulse las estrategias poblacional e individual, mediante el uso de toda la evidencia científica disponible, desde ensayos clínicos hasta estudios observacionales y modelo matemáticos para evaluar intervenciones a nivel poblacional, incluyendo análisis de coste-efectividadBased on the two main frameworks for evaluating scientific evidence—SEC and GRADE—European cardiovascular prevention guidelines recommend interventions across all life stages using a combination of population-based and high-risk strategies with diet as the cornerstone of prevention. The evaluation of cardiovascular risk (CVR) incorporates HDL level and psycho-social factors, a very high risk category, and the concept of age-risk. They also recommend cognitive-behavioural methods (e.g.,motivational interviewing, psychological interventions, led by health professionals and with the participation of the patient’s family, to counterbalance psychosocial stress and reduce CVR through the institution of positive habits such as a healthy diet, physical activity, smoking cessation, and adherence to treatment. Additionally, public health interventions—such as smoking ban in public areas or the elimination of trans fatty acids from the food chain—are also essential. Other innovations include abandoning antiplatelet therapy in primary prevention and the recommendation of maintaining blood pressure (BP) within the1 30-139/80-85 mmHg range in diabetic patients and individuals with high CVR. Finally ,due to the significant impact on patient progress and medical costs, special emphasisis given to the low therapeutic adherence levels observed . In sum ,improving cardiovascular prevention requires a true partnership among the political class, public administrations, scientific and professional associations, health foundations, consumer associations, patients and their families. Such partnership would promote population-based and individual strategies by taking advantage o the broad spectrum of scientific evidence available, from clinical trials to observational studies and mathematical models to evaluate population-based interventions, including cost-effectiveness analyse

Spanish adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than <10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don't recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse.S

Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)

Risk profiles and one-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in India: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) is an ongoing prospective noninterventional registry, which is providing important information on the baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and 1-year outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This report describes data from Indian patients recruited in this registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 52,014 patients with newly diagnosed AF were enrolled globally; of these, 1388 patients were recruited from 26 sites within India (2012-2016). In India, the mean age was 65.8 years at diagnosis of NVAF. Hypertension was the most prevalent risk factor for AF, present in 68.5% of patients from India and in 76.3% of patients globally (P < 0.001). Diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) were prevalent in 36.2% and 28.1% of patients as compared with global prevalence of 22.2% and 21.6%, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). Antiplatelet therapy was the most common antithrombotic treatment in India. With increasing stroke risk, however, patients were more likely to receive oral anticoagulant therapy [mainly vitamin K antagonist (VKA)], but average international normalized ratio (INR) was lower among Indian patients [median INR value 1.6 (interquartile range {IQR}: 1.3-2.3) versus 2.3 (IQR 1.8-2.8) (P < 0.001)]. Compared with other countries, patients from India had markedly higher rates of all-cause mortality [7.68 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval 6.32-9.35) vs 4.34 (4.16-4.53), P < 0.0001], while rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding were lower after 1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Compared to previously published registries from India, the GARFIELD-AF registry describes clinical profiles and outcomes in Indian patients with AF of a different etiology. The registry data show that compared to the rest of the world, Indian AF patients are younger in age and have more diabetes and CAD. Patients with a higher stroke risk are more likely to receive anticoagulation therapy with VKA but are underdosed compared with the global average in the GARFIELD-AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362