Premium
Ineffectiveness of lipid‐lowering therapy in primary care
Author(s) -
Van Ganse E.,
Souchet T.,
Laforest L.,
Moulin P.,
Bertrand M.,
Le Jeunne P.,
Travier N.,
Yin D.,
Alemao E.,
De Pouvourville G.
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
british journal of clinical pharmacology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.216
H-Index - 146
eISSN - 1365-2125
pISSN - 0306-5251
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2005.02266.x
Subject(s) - medicine , risk factor , population , framingham risk score , disease , coronary heart disease , cholesterol , intensive care medicine , physical therapy , environmental health
Background Evidence confirms the positive effects of lipid‐lowering agents on the risk of cardiovascular disease. Local guidelines in France (AFSSAPS) have defined therapeutic objectives for LDL‐cholesterol. These objectives vary with the number of cardiovascular risk factors in addition to dyslipidaemia. We determined the proportions of patients at therapeutic objective in different classes of cardiovascular risk to test the hypothesis that compliance with guidelines varies across the levels of risk. Comparison with international guidelines (ANDEM) was also performed. Methods A group of 3173 dyslipidaemic patients treated with lipid‐lowering agents and managed by general practitioners was randomly selected from BKL‐Thales panel, a French computerized database. For each patient, history of coronary heart disease and the number of cardiovascular risk factors were documented. Compliance with guidelines was assessed from achievement of therapeutic objective. Results The study population included 79% primary prevention patients (1.6, 25.5, 31.7 and 20.1%, with 1, 2, 3, and >3 risk factors, respectively) and 21.0% secondary prevention patients. Applying AFSSAPS guidelines, the proportions of primary prevention patients not at LDL‐cholesterol objectives varied across risk categories ( P < 0.0001), from 3.9% for patients with one risk factor to 46.5% for patients with >3 risk factors, and therapeutic failure reached 39.9% in secondary prevention. Only 26% of patients who were at high cardiovascular risk (>3 risk factors or prior coronary heart disease) and not at therapeutic objective received high doses (>standard recommended doses) of lipid‐lowering agents in monotherapy. Applying ANDEM guidelines, 74% of secondary prevention patients were not at treatment goal. Conclusion Compliance with guidelines varied inversely with the level of cardiovascular risk. Besides, most patients not at therapeutic objective were not up‐titrated. The use of lipid‐lowering agents is inadequate, depriving many patients of an effective protection against cardiovascular diseases.