Post-Prandial Lipid Levels for Assessing Target Goal Achievement in Type 2 Diabetic Patients Taking Statin

It is inconvenient to perform serum lipid analysis in fasting state in diabetic patients with drug treatment. In patients with statin treatment and Asian diet, it has not been clearly known whether non-fasting values could be used for the clinical decision making in diabetic patients. In this study, fasting and post-prandial plasma lipid profiles of hospitalized type 2 diabetic patients taking statin, were measured in whom standard diabetic breakfast in traditional Korean style were provided. In repeated-measures ANOVA, there were no significant differences among fasting, post-prandial 2 and 4 hr low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol values. When compared to fasting levels, both post-prandial 2 hr and 4 hr LDL cholesterol levels were misclassified as not achieved target goal only in 4% of patients. Post-prandial HDL cholesterol matched with fasting values in women, without exception. In conclusion, the fasting and post-prandial LDL and HDL cholesterol levels are not significantly different each other and can be used in the assessment of achieving target goal in type 2 diabetes taking statin after Korean diet

The Myocardial Ischemia Reduction with Acute Cholesterol Lowering trial: MIRACuLous or not, it's time to change current practice

The Myocardial Ischemia Reduction with Aggressive Cholesterol Lowering (MIRACL) study was the first trial to assess whether statins might be of clinical benefit in those with recently unstable coronary disease. MIRACL found that high-dose atorvastatin was safe and reduced the incidence of the composite endpoint, death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, resuscitated sudden cardiac death or emergent rehospitalization for recurrent ischemia at 16 weeks when compared with placebo. Despite a number of important study limitations, MIRACL's findings and the prior observation that inpatient initiation of lipid-lowering therapy is associated with higher rates of subsequent utilization, suggest that it is prudent to begin statin therapy when patients present with an acute coronary syndrome

Equity in the use of antithrombotic drugs, beta-blockers and statins among Finnish coronary patients

Background Earlier studies have mainly reported the use of antithrombotic drugs, beta-blockers and statins among hospital patient populations or MI patients. This study aimed to describe the use of these drugs among middle-aged Finnish coronary patients and to identify patient groups in risk of being prescribed inadequate medication for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Methods One-year follow-up survey data from a random sample of a cohort of coronary patients were used along with register data linked to the survey. The response rate was 54% (n = 2650). The main outcome measures were use of antithrombotic drugs, beta-blockers and statins and the data were analysed using logistic regression analysis. Results Among men and women, respectively, 82% and 81% used beta-blockers, 95% and 89% used antithrombotic drugs, and 62% and 59% used statins. Younger men and men from higher socioeconomic groups were more likely to use statins, even after controlling for disease severity and comorbidity. In women, the age trend was reversed and no socioeconomic differences were found. Drug use increased with increased disease severity, but diabetes had only a slight effect. Conclusion The use of antithrombotic drugs and beta-blockers among Finnish coronary patients seemed to be rather appropriate and, to some extent, prescription practices of preventive medication varied according to patients' risk of coronary events. However, statin use was remarkably low among men with low socio-economic status, and there is need to improve preventive drug treatment among diabetic coronary patients.BioMed Central Open acces

The effect of a comprehensive lifestyle intervention on cardiovascular risk factors in pharmacologically treated patients with stable cardiovascular disease compared to usual care: a randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The additional benefit of lifestyle interventions in patients receiving cardioprotective drug treatment to improve cardiovascular risk profile is not fully established.</p> <p>The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of a target-driven multidisciplinary structured lifestyle intervention programme of 6 months duration aimed at maximum reduction of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared with usual care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A single centre, two arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial was performed. Patients with stable established CVD and at least one lifestyle-related risk factor were recruited from the vascular and cardiology outpatient departments of the university hospital. Blocked randomisation was used to allocate patients to the intervention (n = 71) or control group (n = 75) using an on-site computer system combined with allocations in computer-generated tables of random numbers kept in a locked computer file. The intervention group received the comprehensive lifestyle intervention offered in a specialised outpatient clinic in addition to usual care. The control group continued to receive usual care. Outcome measures were the lifestyle-related cardiovascular risk factors: smoking, physical activity, physical fitness, diet, blood pressure, plasma total/HDL/LDL cholesterol concentrations, BMI, waist circumference, and changes in medication.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The intervention led to increased physical activity/fitness levels and an improved cardiovascular risk factor profile (reduced BMI and waist circumference). In this setting, cardiovascular risk management for blood pressure and lipid levels by prophylactic treatment for CVD in usual care was already close to optimal as reflected in baseline levels. There was no significant improvement in any other risk factor.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Even in CVD patients receiving good clinical care and using cardioprotective drug treatment, a comprehensive lifestyle intervention had a beneficial effect on some cardiovascular risk factors. In the present era of cardiovascular therapy and with the increasing numbers of overweight and physically inactive patients, this study confirms the importance of risk factor control through lifestyle modification as a supplement to more intensified drug treatment in patients with CVD.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN69776211 at <url>http://www.controlled-trials.com</url></p

How equitable are GP practice prescribing rates for statins?: an ecological study in four primary care trusts in North West England

BACKGROUND: There is a growing body of literature highlighting inequities in GP practice prescribing rates for a number of drug therapies. The small amount of research on statin prescribing has either focussed on variations rather than equity per se, been based on populations other than GP practices or has used cost-based prescribing rates. AIM: To explore the equity of GP practice prescribing rates for statins, using the theoretical framework of equity of treatment (also known as horizontal equity or comparative need). METHODS: The study involved a cross-sectional secondary analysis in four primary care trusts (PCTs 1–4) in the North West of England, including 132 GP practices. Prescribing rates and health care needs indicators (HCNIs) were developed for all GP practices. RESULTS: Scatter-plots revealed large differences between individual GP practices, both within and between PCTs, in terms of the relationship between statin prescribing and healthcare need. In addition, there were large differences between GP practices in terms of the relationship between actual and expected prescribing rates for statins. Multiple regression analyses explained almost 30% of the variation in prescribing rates in the combined dataset, 25% in PCT1, 31% in PCT3, 51% in PC4 and 58% in PCT2. There were positive associations with variables relating to CHD hospital diagnoses and procedures and negative associations with variables relating to ethnicity, material deprivation, the proportion of patients aged over 75 years and single-handed GP practices. CONCLUSION: Overall, this study found inequitable relationships between actual and expected prescribing rates, and possible inequities in statin prescribing rates on the basis of ethnicity, deprivation, single-handed practices and the proportion of patients aged over 75 years

The effect of post-discharge educational intervention on patients in achieving objectives in modifiable risk factors six months after discharge following an episode of acute coronary syndrome, (CAM-2 Project): a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>We investigated whether an intervention mainly consisting of a signed agreement between patient and physician on the objectives to be reached, improves reaching these secondary prevention objectives in modifiable cardiovascular risk factors six-months after discharge following an acute coronary syndrome.</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is room to improve mid-term adherence to clinical guidelines' recommendations in coronary heart disease secondary prevention, specially non-pharmacological ones, often neglected.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In CAM-2, patients discharged after an acute coronary syndrome were randomly assigned to the intervention or the usual care group. The primary outcome was reaching therapeutic objectives in various secondary prevention variables: smoking, obesity, blood lipids, blood pressure control, exercise and taking of medication.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>1757 patients were recruited in 64 hospitals and 1510 (762 in the intervention and 748 in the control group) attended the six-months follow-up visit. After adjustment for potentially important variables, there were, between the intervention and control group, differences in the mean reduction of body mass index (0.5 vs. 0.2; p < 0.001) and waist circumference (1.6 cm vs. 0.6 cm; p = 0.05), proportion of patients who exercise regularly and those with total cholesterol below 175 mg/dl (64.7% vs. 56.5%; p = 0.001). The reported intake of medications was high in both groups for all the drugs considered with no differences except for statins (98.1% vs. 95.9%; p = 0.029).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>At least in the short term, lifestyle changes among coronary heart disease patients are achievable by intensifying the responsibility of the patient himself by means of a simple and feasible intervention.</p

A randomized trial to assess the impact of opinion leader endorsed evidence summaries on the use of secondary prevention strategies in patients with coronary artery disease: the ESP-CAD trial protocol [NCT00175240]

BACKGROUND: Although numerous therapies have been shown to be beneficial in the prevention of myocardial infarction and/or death in patients with coronary disease, these therapies are under-used and this gap contributes to sub-optimal patient outcomes. To increase the uptake of proven efficacious therapies in patients with coronary disease, we designed a multifaceted quality improvement intervention employing patient-specific reminders delivered at the point-of-care, with one-page treatment guidelines endorsed by local opinion leaders ("Local Opinion Leader Statement"). This trial is designed to evaluate the impact of these Local Opinion Leader Statements on the practices of primary care physicians caring for patients with coronary disease. In order to isolate the effects of the messenger (the local opinion leader) from the message, we will also test an identical quality improvement intervention that is not signed by a local opinion leader ("Unsigned Evidence Statement") in this trial. METHODS: Randomized trial testing three different interventions in patients with coronary disease: (1) usual care versus (2) Local Opinion Leader Statement versus (3) Unsigned Evidence Statement. Patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease after cardiac catheterization (but without acute coronary syndromes) will be randomly allocated to one of the three interventions by cluster randomization (at the level of their primary care physician), if they are not on optimal statin therapy at baseline. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients demonstrating improvement in their statin management in the first six months post-catheterization. Secondary outcomes include examinations of the use of ACE inhibitors, anti-platelet agents, beta-blockers, non-statin lipid lowering drugs, and provision of smoking cessation advice in the first six months post-catheterization in the three treatment arms. Although randomization will be clustered at the level of the primary care physician, the design effect is anticipated to be negligible and the unit of analysis will be the patient. DISCUSSION: If either the Local Opinion Leader Statement or the Unsigned Evidence Statement improves secondary prevention in patients with coronary disease, they can be easily modified and applied in other communities and for other target conditions