BACKGROUND: Non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) goal attainment per Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) guidelines remains low. OBJECTIVE: To understand gaps in knowledge and practices of physicians-in-training (internal medicine, family medicine, cardiology, endocrinology) towards non-HDL-C. METHODS: A survey based on a conceptual model to assess the trainee's knowledge, attitudes, and practice regarding non-HDL-C was developed and administered to physicians-in-training (n = 655) at 26 training programs in the United States. Responses of those in internal medicine and family medicine (residents-in-training; n = 418) were compared with those in cardiology and endocrinology (fellows-in-training; n = 124). RESULTS: Response rate was 83.7%. Fifty-three percent of residents and 31% of fellows-in-training had not read the ATP III guidelines (P < .001). Thirty-three percent of the residents and 35% fellows-in-training could not calculate non-HDL-C from a standard lipid panel (P = .7). Sixty-seven percent of the residents and 52% of fellows were not aware of treatment goals for non-HDL-C (P = .004 for comparison between residents and fellows). Both residents and fellows reported infrequent calculation of non-HDL-C levels in patients with elevated triglycerides (≥200 mg/dL; 32.5% vs 35.4%, respectively, P = .6). Lack of familiarity with ATP III guidelines, lack of knowledge regarding importance of non-HDL-C, lack of institutional mandate to calculate non-HDL-C, and lack of emphasis on non-HDL-C by teaching staff were reported as barriers to non-HDL-C use in routine clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: At least one-third of physicians-in-training could not calculate non-HDL-C from a standard lipid panel, and a large number were not aware of ATP III treatment goals pertaining to non-HDL-C. This area represents one for improvement if non-HDL-C is to be retained as a treatment target in the forthcoming ATP-IV guidelines. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) goal attainment per Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) guidelines remains low. OBJECTIVE: To understand gaps in knowledge and practices of physicians-in-training (internal medicine, family medicine, cardiology, endocrinology) towards non-HDL-C. METHODS: A survey based on a conceptual model to assess the trainee's knowledge, attitudes, and practice regarding non-HDL-C was developed and administered to physicians-in-training (n = 655) at 26 training programs in the United States. Responses of those in internal medicine and family medicine (residents-in-training; n = 418) were compared with those in cardiology and endocrinology (fellows-in-training; n = 124). RESULTS: Response rate was 83.7%. Fifty-three percent of residents and 31% of fellows-in-training had not read the ATP III guidelines (P < .001). Thirty-three percent of the residents and 35% fellows-in-training could not calculate non-HDL-C from a standard lipid panel (P = .7). Sixty-seven percent of the residents and 52% of fellows were not aware of treatment goals for non-HDL-C (P = .004 for comparison between residents and fellows). Both residents and fellows reported infrequent calculation of non-HDL-C levels in patients with elevated triglycerides (≥200 mg/dL; 32.5% vs 35.4%, respectively, P = .6). Lack of familiarity with ATP III guidelines, lack of knowledge regarding importance of non-HDL-C, lack of institutional mandate to calculate non-HDL-C, and lack of emphasis on non-HDL-C by teaching staff were reported as barriers to non-HDL-C use in routine clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: At least one-third of physicians-in-training could not calculate non-HDL-C from a standard lipid panel, and a large number were not aware of ATP III treatment goals pertaining to non-HDL-C. This area represents one for improvement if non-HDL-C is to be retained as a treatment target in the forthcoming ATP-IV guidelines. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Yashashwi Pokharel; Lynne Steinberg; Winston Chan; Julia M Akeroyd; Peter H Jones; Vijay Nambi; Khurram Nasir; Laura Petersen; Christie M Ballantyne; Salim S Virani Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Yashashwi Pokharel; Lynne Steinberg; Winston Chan; Julia M Akeroyd; Peter H Jones; Vijay Nambi; Khurram Nasir; Laura Petersen; Christie M Ballantyne; Salim S Virani Journal: Data Brief Date: 2016-03-09
Authors: Renato Quispe; Aditya Hendrani; Mohamed B Elshazly; Erin D Michos; John W McEvoy; Michael J Blaha; Maciej Banach; Krishnaji R Kulkarni; Peter P Toth; Josef Coresh; Roger S Blumenthal; Steven R Jones; Seth S Martin Journal: BMC Med Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Claire Welsh; Carlos A Celis-Morales; Rosemary Brown; Daniel F Mackay; James Lewsey; Patrick B Mark; Stuart R Gray; Lyn D Ferguson; Jana J Anderson; Donald M Lyall; John G Cleland; Pardeep S Jhund; Jason M R Gill; Jill P Pell; Naveed Sattar; Paul Welsh Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 29.690