| 1. |
- Ray, K. K., et al.
(författare)
-
EU-Wide Cross-Sectional Observational Study of Lipid-Modifying Therapy Use in Secondary and Primary Care: the DA VINCI study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2047-4873 .- 2047-4881. ; 28:11, s. 1279-1289
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims To provide contemporary data on the implementation of European guideline recommendations for lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) across different settings and populations and how this impacts low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal achievement. Methods and results An 18 country, cross-sectional, observational study of patients prescribed LLT for primary or secondary prevention in primary or secondary care across Europe. Between June 2017 and November 2018, data were collected at a single visit, including LLT in the preceding 12 months and most recent LDL-C. Primary outcome was the achievement of risk-based 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) LDL-C goal while receiving stabilized LLT; 2019 goal achievement was also assessed. Overall, 5888 patients (3000 primary and 2888 secondary prevention patients) were enrolled; 54% [95% confidence interval (CI) 52-56] achieved their risk-based 2016 goal and 33% (95% CI 32-35) achieved their risk-based 2019 goal. High-intensity statin monotherapy was used in 20% and 38% of very high-risk primary and secondary prevention patients, respectively. Corresponding 2016 goal attainment was 22% and 45% (17% and 22% for 2019 goals) for very high-risk primary and secondary prevention patients, respectively. Use of moderate-high-intensity statins in combination with ezetimibe (9%), or any LLT with PCSK9 inhibitors (1%), was low; corresponding 2016 and 2019 goal attainment was 53% and 20% (ezetimibe combination), and 67% and 58% (PCSK9i combination). Conclusion Gaps between clinical guidelines and clinical practice for lipid management across Europe persist, which will be exacerbated by the 2019 guidelines. Even with optimized statins, greater utilization of non-statin LLT is likely needed to reduce these gaps for patients at highest risk.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kotanidis, Christos P, et al.
(författare)
-
Invasive vs. conservative management of older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: individual patient data meta-analysis.
- 2024
-
Ingår i: European heart journal. - 1522-9645.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) are less likely to receive guideline-recommended care including coronary angiography and revascularization. Evidence-based recommendations regarding interventional management strategies in this patient cohort are scarce. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of routine invasive vs. conservative management of NSTEACS by using individual patient data (IPD) from all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including older patients.MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus were searched between 1 January 2010 and 11 September 2023. RCTs investigating routine invasive and conservative strategies in persons >70 years old with NSTEACS were included. Observational studies or trials involving populations outside the target range were excluded. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) at 1 year. One-stage IPD meta-analyses were adopted by use of random-effects and fixed-effect Cox models. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023379819).Six eligible studies were identified including 1479 participants. The primary endpoint occurred in 181 of 736 (24.5%) participants in the invasive management group compared with 215 of 743 (28.9%) participants in the conservative management group with a hazard ratio (HR) from random-effects model of 0.87 (95% CI 0.63-1.22; P = .43). The hazard for MI at 1 year was significantly lower in the invasive group compared with the conservative group (HR from random-effects model 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.87; P = .006). Similar results were seen for urgent revascularization (HR from random-effects model 0.41, 95% CI 0.18-0.95; P = .037). There was no significant difference in mortality.No evidence was found that routine invasive treatment for NSTEACS in older patients reduces the risk of a composite of all-cause mortality and MI within 1 year compared with conservative management. However, there is convincing evidence that invasive treatment significantly lowers the risk of repeat MI or urgent revascularisation. Further evidence is needed from ongoing larger clinical trials.
|
|
