Related cardiometabolic factors and prevalence of low HDL-cholesterol levels and atherogenic dyslipidemia. SIMETAP-AD study. / Factores cardiometabólicos asociados y prevalencia de concentraciones bajas de colesterol HDL y de dislipidemia aterogénica. Estudio SIMETAP-DA.

AIM: To determine the crude and sex- and age-adjusted prevalence rates of atherogenic dyslipidemia (AD) and low HDL-cholesterol levels (low-HDLc), and to assess their associations with cardiovascular risk factors, chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular and cardiometabolic diseases. METHODS: Population-based cross-sectional study conducted in Primary Care, with randomly selected adult subjects. The AD was considered if the patients had hypertriglyceridemia (triglycerides≥150mg/dL) and low-HDLc (<40mg/dL [men];<50mg/dL [women]). Crude and sex- and age-adjusted prevalence rates were determined, and univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to assess related cardiometabolic factors. RESULTS: Study population with 6,588 adults (55.9% women) with mean age 55.1 (±17.5) years. The mean HDLc levels were 49.2 (±12.6) mg/dL in men and 59.2 (±14.7) mg/dL in women. The crude prevalence rates of low-HDLc and AD were 30.8% (95%CI: 29.7-31.9), and 14.3% (95%CI: 13.5-15.2), respectively. The adjusted prevalence rates of low-HDLc were 28.0% in men and 31.0% in women, and AD were 16.4% in men and 10.6% in women. Seventy-three percent of the population with AD had high or very high cardiovascular risk. The independent factors associated with low HDLc or with AD were diabetes, smoking, abdominal obesity, and obesity. The major factors associated with low HDLc and AD were hypertriglyceridemia and diabetes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Almost a third of the adult population had low HDL-C and half of them met AD criteria. Cardiometabolic factors were associated with low HDL-C and AD, highlighting hypertriglyceridemia with low HDLc, and DM with AD.

Oral versus intramuscular administration of vitamin B12 for vitamin B12 deficiency in primary care: a pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority clinical trial (OB12).

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of oral versus intramuscular (IM) vitamin B12 (VB12) in patients aged ≥65 years with VB12 deficiency. DESIGN: Pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority, multicentre trial in 22 primary healthcare centres in Madrid (Spain). PARTICIPANTS: 283 patients ≥65 years with VB12 deficiency were randomly assigned to oral (n=140) or IM (n=143) treatment arm. INTERVENTIONS: The IM arm received 1 mg VB12 on alternate days in weeks 1-2, 1 mg/week in weeks 3-8 and 1 mg/month in weeks 9-52. The oral arm received 1 mg/day in weeks 1-8 and 1 mg/week in weeks 9-52. MAIN OUTCOMES: Serum VB12 concentration normalisation (≥211 pg/mL) at 8, 26 and 52 weeks. Non-inferiority would be declared if the difference between arms is 10% or less. Secondary outcomes included symptoms, adverse events, adherence to treatment, quality of life, patient preferences and satisfaction. RESULTS: The follow-up period (52 weeks) was completed by 229 patients (80.9%). At week 8, the percentage of patients in each arm who achieved normal B12 levels was well above 90%; the differences in this percentage between the oral and IM arm were -0.7% (133 out of 135 vs 129 out of 130; 95% CI: -3.2 to 1.8; p>0.999) by per-protocol (PPT) analysis and 4.8% (133 out of 140 vs 129 out of 143; 95% CI: -1.3 to 10.9; p=0.124) by intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. At week 52, the percentage of patients who achieved normal B12 levels was 73.6% in the oral arm and 80.4% in the IM arm; these differences were -6.3% (103 out of 112 vs 115 out of 117; 95% CI: -11.9 to -0.1; p=0.025) and -6.8% (103 out of 140 vs 115 out of 143; 95% CI: -16.6 to 2.9; p=0.171), respectively. Factors affecting the success rate at week 52 were age, OR=0.95 (95% CI: 0.91 to 0.99) and having reached VB12 levels ≥281 pg/mL at week 8, OR=8.1 (95% CI: 2.4 to 27.3). Under a Bayesian framework, non-inferiority probabilities (Δ>-10%) at week 52 were 0.036 (PPT) and 0.060 (ITT). Quality of life and adverse effects were comparable across groups. 83.4% of patients preferred the oral route. CONCLUSIONS: Oral administration was no less effective than IM administration at 8 weeks. Although differences were found between administration routes at week 52, the probability that the differences were below the non-inferiority threshold was very low. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01476007; EUDRACT (2010-024129-20).