INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The treatment and control of cardiovascular risk factors both play key roles in primary prevention. The aim of the present study is to analyze the proportion of primary prevention patients aged 35-74 years being treated and controlled in relation to their level of coronary risk. METHODS: Pooled analysis with individual data from 11 studies conducted in the first decade of the 21st century. We used standardized questionnaires and blood pressure measures, glycohemoglobin and lipid profiles. We defined optimal risk factor control as blood pressure < 140/90 mm Hg and glycohemoglobin <7%. In hypercholesterolemia, we applied both the European Societies and Health Prevention and Promotion Activities Programme criteria. RESULTS: We enrolled 27 903 participants (54% women). Drug treatments were being administered to 68% of men and 73% of women with a history of hypertension (P<.001), 66% and 69% respectively, of patients with diabetes (P=.03), and 39% and 42% respectively, of those with hypercholesterolemia (P<.001). Control was good in 34% of men and 42% of women with hypertension (P<.001); 65% and 63% respectively, of those with diabetes (P=.626); 2% and 3% respectively, of patients with hypercholesterolemia according to European Societies criteria (P=.092) and 46% and 52% respectively, of those with hypercholesterolemia according to Health Prevention and Promotion Activities Programme criteria (P<.001). The proportion of uncontrolled participants increased with coronary risk (P<.001), except in men with diabetes. Lipid-lowering treatments were more often administered to women with ≥ 10% coronary risk than to men (59% vs. 50%, P = 0,024). [corrected] CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of well-controlled participants was 65% at best. The European Societies criteria for hypercholesterolemia were vaguely reached. Lipid-lowering treatment is not prioritized in patients at high coronary risk.
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The treatment and control of cardiovascular risk factors both play key roles in primary prevention. The aim of the present study is to analyze the proportion of primary prevention patients aged 35-74 years being treated and controlled in relation to their level of coronary risk. METHODS: Pooled analysis with individual data from 11 studies conducted in the first decade of the 21st century. We used standardized questionnaires and blood pressure measures, glycohemoglobin and lipid profiles. We defined optimal risk factor control as blood pressure < 140/90 mm Hg and glycohemoglobin <7%. In hypercholesterolemia, we applied both the European Societies and Health Prevention and Promotion Activities Programme criteria. RESULTS: We enrolled 27 903 participants (54% women). Drug treatments were being administered to 68% of men and 73% of women with a history of hypertension (P<.001), 66% and 69% respectively, of patients with diabetes (P=.03), and 39% and 42% respectively, of those with hypercholesterolemia (P<.001). Control was good in 34% of men and 42% of women with hypertension (P<.001); 65% and 63% respectively, of those with diabetes (P=.626); 2% and 3% respectively, of patients with hypercholesterolemia according to European Societies criteria (P=.092) and 46% and 52% respectively, of those with hypercholesterolemia according to Health Prevention and Promotion Activities Programme criteria (P<.001). The proportion of uncontrolled participants increased with coronary risk (P<.001), except in men with diabetes. Lipid-lowering treatments were more often administered to women with ≥ 10% coronary risk than to men (59% vs. 50%, P = 0,024). [corrected] CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of well-controlled participants was 65% at best. The European Societies criteria for hypercholesterolemia were vaguely reached. Lipid-lowering treatment is not prioritized in patients at high coronary risk.
Authors: Glessiane de Oliveira Almeida; Felipe J Aidar; Dihogo Gama de Matos; Paulo Francisco de Almeida-Neto; Enaldo Vieira de Melo; José Augusto Soares Barreto Filho; Marcos Antonio Almeida-Santos; Victor Batista Oliveira; Rebeca Rocha de Almeida; Suelen Maiara Dos Santos; Larissa Monteiro Costa Pereira; Juliana Santos Barbosa; Antônio Carlos Sobral Sousa Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2021-01-17 Impact factor: 2.430
Authors: Alex de la Sierra; Xavier Pintó; Carlos Guijarro; José López Miranda; Daniel Callejo; Jesús Cuervo; Rudi Subirà; Marta Rubio Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2015-10-26 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: E Leiva; V Mujica; R Orrego; S Wehinger; A Soto; G Icaza; M Vásquez; L Díaz; M Andrews; M Arredondo Journal: J Diabetes Res Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 4.011
Authors: Arantxa Catalán-Ramos; Jose M Verdú; María Grau; Manuel Iglesias-Rodal; José L del Val García; Alicia Consola; Eva Comin Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 1.137
Authors: Fabián Unda Villafuerte; Joan Llobera Cànaves; Patricia Lorente Montalvo; María Lucía Moreno Sancho; Bartolomé Oliver Oliver; Patricia Bassante Flores; Andreu Estela Mantolan; Joan Pou Bordoy; Tomás Rodríguez Ruiz; Ana Requena Hernández; Alfonso Leiva; Matíes Torrent Quetglas; José María Coll Benejam; Pilar D'Agosto Forteza; Fernando Rigo Carratalà Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 1.817