English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background: We compared the use of lipid lowering therapy, low density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, and proportion achieving guideline-recommended LDL-C levels in patients with private vs. public insurance coverage for their lipid lowering treatment. Materials and Methods: Guidelines Oriented Approach to Lipid lowering (GOAL) Canada enrolled 2009 patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and an LDLC above the guideline-recommended target of <2.0 mmol/L despite maximally tolerated statin therapy. During two follow-up visits physicians received online reminders of treatment recommendations. Results: Of 2009 patients enrolled (median age 63 years, 42% female), there were 1284 (64%) patients with private and 725 (36%) with public insurance for lipid lowering therapy. Patients with private insurance were younger and less likely to have a history of heart failure or to be on bile acid sequestrants. There was no difference between the groups in their lipid levels or lipid lowering therapy at baseline. During the follow up, there was no difference in the use of ezetimibe; however, the use of PCSK9i was more frequent in patients with private insurance (31.7 % vs. 21%, p<0.0001), the mean LDL-C level was slightly lower (2.11±1.17 vs. 2.31±1.17 mmol/L, p = 0.001), and the proportion of patients achieving the guideline-recommended LDL-C level was greater (54% vs. 45.5%, p = 0.001). After adjustment for other factors in a multivariable model, private insurance was not a significant predictor of achieving the guideline-recommended LDL-C level in a multivariable model. Conclusion: While PCSK9i use was higher in patients with private insurance, the majority of patients with either private or public insurance experienced similar treatment inertia. The cost of non-generic medications does not appear to be the dominant reason for the continued care gap in lipid lowering of high-risk patients.

Is Treatment Inertia Unique to Publicly Funded Healthcare? Insights from the Guidelines Oriented Approach to Lipid lowering (GOAL) Canada Program