Roda Plakogiannis1, Joseph J Saseen2, Abraham Stefanidis3. 1. Arnold and Marie Schwartz College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences-Long Island University, Brooklyn, NY, USA. 2. University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora, CO, USA. 3. Peter J. Tobin College of Business-St. John's University, NY, NY, USA.
Abstract
Background: Since 2013 there have been cholesterol guideline changes impacting pharmacists' clinical practice in managing lipid disorders. For more than a decade, cholesterol management was based on the National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol Adult Treatment Panel III guideline, highlighting non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) as a secondary target in persons with triglycerides ≥200 mg/dL, after low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment. The 2013 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline differed from the traditional management of dyslipidemia, in part no longer emphasizing the utilization of non-HDL-C levels. Objective: To measure pharmacists' attitudes and behavior regarding utilization of non-HDL-C level calculation before and after the inception of the 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol guideline. Methods: Pharmacists in the American College of Clinical Pharmacy ambulatory care listserv participated in an electronic survey in November 2013, before the inception of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline, and again in October 2018. Results: We collected 391 usable responses from participants; 212 responses in 2013 and 179 responses in 2018. The before and after comparison revealed that respondents in 2013 reported significantly higher frequency of calculating non-HDL-C levels (mean = 1.88, SD = 0.80) than respondents in 2018 (mean = 1.66, SD = 0.79) (P ≤ .001). Also, the frequency that non-HDL-C level calculation alters decisions regarding course of treatment was lower in the 2018 (mean = 3.50, SD = 1.06) in comparison with 2013 (mean = 3.77, SD = 0.88) (P ≤ .05). Furthermore, pharmacists were more favorable toward the inclusion of non-HDL-C level calculation in 2018 (mean = 3.77, SD = 1.05) than in 2013 (mean = 3.13, SD = 1.33) (P ≤ .001). Conclusion and Relevance: Clinical pharmacists' utilization of non-HDL-C levels in the clinical management of patients with hypercholesterolemia has decreased, highlighting the need for further education on the importance of evaluating non-HDL-C levels in the very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease population.
Background: Since 2013 there have been cholesterol guideline changes impacting pharmacists' clinical practice in managing lipid disorders. For more than a decade, cholesterol management was based on the National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol Adult Treatment Panel III guideline, highlighting non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) as a secondary target in persons with triglycerides ≥200 mg/dL, after low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment. The 2013 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline differed from the traditional management of dyslipidemia, in part no longer emphasizing the utilization of non-HDL-C levels. Objective: To measure pharmacists' attitudes and behavior regarding utilization of non-HDL-C level calculation before and after the inception of the 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol guideline. Methods: Pharmacists in the American College of Clinical Pharmacy ambulatory care listserv participated in an electronic survey in November 2013, before the inception of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline, and again in October 2018. Results: We collected 391 usable responses from participants; 212 responses in 2013 and 179 responses in 2018. The before and after comparison revealed that respondents in 2013 reported significantly higher frequency of calculating non-HDL-C levels (mean = 1.88, SD = 0.80) than respondents in 2018 (mean = 1.66, SD = 0.79) (P ≤ .001). Also, the frequency that non-HDL-C level calculation alters decisions regarding course of treatment was lower in the 2018 (mean = 3.50, SD = 1.06) in comparison with 2013 (mean = 3.77, SD = 0.88) (P ≤ .05). Furthermore, pharmacists were more favorable toward the inclusion of non-HDL-C level calculation in 2018 (mean = 3.77, SD = 1.05) than in 2013 (mean = 3.13, SD = 1.33) (P ≤ .001). Conclusion and Relevance: Clinical pharmacists' utilization of non-HDL-C levels in the clinical management of patients with hypercholesterolemia has decreased, highlighting the need for further education on the importance of evaluating non-HDL-C levels in the very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease population.
Authors: Scott M Grundy; Neil J Stone; Alison L Bailey; Craig Beam; Kim K Birtcher; Roger S Blumenthal; Lynne T Braun; Sarah de Ferranti; Joseph Faiella-Tommasino; Daniel E Forman; Ronald Goldberg; Paul A Heidenreich; Mark A Hlatky; Daniel W Jones; Donald Lloyd-Jones; Nuria Lopez-Pajares; Chiadi E Ndumele; Carl E Orringer; Carmen A Peralta; Joseph J Saseen; Sidney C Smith; Laurence Sperling; Salim S Virani; Joseph Yeboah Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-11-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Terry A Jacobson; Matthew K Ito; Kevin C Maki; Carl E Orringer; Harold E Bays; Peter H Jones; James M McKenney; Scott M Grundy; Edward A Gill; Robert A Wild; Don P Wilson; W Virgil Brown Journal: J Clin Lipidol Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 4.766
Authors: Benoit J Arsenault; Jamal S Rana; Erik S G Stroes; Jean-Pierre Després; Prediman K Shah; John J P Kastelein; Nicholas J Wareham; S Matthijs Boekholdt; Kay-Tee Khaw Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-12-29 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Tobias Pischon; Cynthia J Girman; Frank M Sacks; Nader Rifai; Meir J Stampfer; Eric B Rimm Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-11-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Weiquan Lu; Helaine E Resnick; Kathleen A Jablonski; Kristina L Jones; Arvind K Jain; Wm James Howard; David C Robbins; Barbara V Howard Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Don P Wilson; Terry A Jacobson; Peter H Jones; Marlys L Koschinsky; Catherine J McNeal; Børge G Nordestgaard; Carl E Orringer Journal: J Clin Lipidol Date: 2019-05-17 Impact factor: 5.365