PEER simplified lipid guideline 2023 update: Prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To update the 2015 clinical practice guideline and provide a simplified approach to lipid management in the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) for primary care. METHODS: Following the Institute of Medicine's Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust, a multidisciplinary, pan-Canadian guideline panel was formed. This panel was represented by primary care providers, free from conflicts of interest with industry, and included the patient perspective. A separate scientific evidence team performed evidence reviews on statins, ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitors, fibrates, bile acid sequestrants, niacin, and omega-3 supplements (docosahexaenoic acid with eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] or EPA ethyl ester alone [icosapent]), as well as on 11 supplemental questions. Recommendations were finalized by the guideline panel through use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. RECOMMENDATIONS: All recommendations are presented in a patient-centred manner designed with the needs of family physicians and other primary care providers in mind. Many recommendations are similar to those published in 2015. Statins remain first-line therapy for both primary and secondary CVD prevention, and the Mediterranean diet and physical activity are recommended to reduce cardiovascular risk (primary and secondary prevention). The guideline panel recommended against using lipoprotein a, apolipoprotein B, or coronary artery calcium levels when assessing cardiovascular risk, and recommended against targeting specific lipid levels. The team also reviewed new evidence pertaining to omega-3 fatty acids (including EPA ethyl ester [icosapent]) and proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitors, and outlined when to engage in informed shared decision making with patients on interventions to lower cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSION: These updated evidence-based guidelines provide a simplified approach to lipid management for the prevention and management of CVD. These guidelines were created by and for primary health care professionals and their patients.

Lipid-lowering therapies for cardiovascular disease prevention and management in primary care: PEER umbrella systematic review of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefits and harms of lipid-lowering therapies used to prevent or manage cardiovascular disease including bile acid sequestrants (BAS), ezetimibe, fibrates, niacin, omega-3 supplements, proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, and statins. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and a grey literature search. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials published between January 2017 and March 2022 looking at statins, ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors, fibrates, BAS, niacin, and omega-3 supplements for preventing cardiovascular outcomes were selected. Outcomes of interest included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and adverse events. SYNTHESIS: A total of 76 systematic reviews were included. Four randomized controlled trials were also included for BAS because no efficacy systematic review was identified. Statins significantly reduced MACE (6 systematic reviews; median risk ratio [RR]=0.74; interquartile range [IQR]=0.71 to 0.76), cardiovascular mortality (7 systematic reviews; median RR=0.85, IQR=0.83 to 0.86), and all-cause mortality (8 systematic reviews; median RR=0.91, IQR=0.88 to 0.92). Major adverse cardiovascular events were also significantly reduced by ezetimibe (3 systematic reviews; median RR=0.93, IQR=0.93 to 0.94), PCSK9 inhibitors (14 systematic reviews; median RR=0.84, IQR=0.83 to 0.87), and fibrates (2 systematic reviews; mean RR=0.86), but these interventions had no effect on cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. Fibrates had no effect on any cardiovascular outcomes when added to a statin. Omega-3 combination supplements had no effect on MACE or all-cause mortality but significantly reduced cardiovascular mortality (5 systematic reviews; median RR=0.93, IQR=0.93 to 0.94). Eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester alone significantly reduced MACE (1 systematic review, RR=0.78) and cardiovascular mortality (2 systematic reviews; RRs of 0.82 and 0.82). In primary cardiovascular prevention, only statins showed consistent benefits on MACE (6 systematic reviews; median RR=0.75, IQR=0.73 to 0.78), cardiovascularall-cause mortality (7 systematic reviews, median RR=0.83, IQR=0.81 to 0.90), and all-cause mortality (8 systematic reviews; median RR=0.91, IQR=0.87 to 0.91). CONCLUSION: Statins have the most consistent evidence for the prevention of cardiovascular complications with a relative risk reduction of about 25% for MACE and 10% to 15% for mortality. The addition of ezetimibe, a PCSK9 inhibitor, or eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester to a statin provides additional MACE risk reduction but has no effect on all-cause mortality.

Lignes directrices simplifiées de PEER sur les lipides : actualisation 2023: Prévention et prise en charge des maladies cardiovasculaires en soins primaires.

OBJECTIF: Actualiser le guide de pratique clinique de 2015 et présenter une approche simplifiée de la prise en charge des lipides dans la prévention des maladies cardiovasculaires (MCV) en première ligne. MÉTHODES: Conformément aux recommandations de l'Institute of Medicine dans Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust, un panel pancanadien d'experts multidisciplinaires en lignes directrices a été formé. Ce panel était représentatif des cliniciens en soins primaires, libre de tout conflit d'intérêts avec l'industrie, et il tenait compte des points de vue des patients. Une équipe distincte, responsable des données probantes scientifiques, a passé en revue l'information sur les statines, l'ézétimibe, les inhibiteurs de la proprotéine convertase subtilisine-kexine de type 9, les fibrates, les chélateurs des acides biliaires, la niacine et les suppléments d'omega-3 (acide docosahexaénoïque avec acide eicosapentaénoïque [EPA] ou ester éthylique de l'EPA seul [icosapent]), ainsi que sur la réponse à 11 questions supplémentaires. Le panel des lignes directrices a finalisé les recommandations en utilisant la méthodologie GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RECOMMANDATIONS: Toutes les recommandations sont présentées de manière à être centrées sur le patient et conçues en ayant à l'esprit les besoins des médecins de famille et des autres cliniciens des soins primaires. De nombreuses recommandations sont semblables à celles publiées en 2015. Les statines demeurent le traitement de première intention pour la prévention tant primaire que secondaire des MCV, et le régime méditerranéen et l'activité physique sont recommandés pour réduire le risque cardiovasculaire (en prévention primaire et secondaire). Le panel des lignes directrices a recommandé de ne pas utiliser le dosage des lipoprotéines a, des apolipoprotéines B ou le score calcique coronarien (SCC) dans l'évaluation du risque cardiovasculaire, et de ne pas cibler de seuils précis de taux lipidiques. L'équipe a aussi passé en revue de nouvelles données concernant les acides gras omega-3 (y compris l'ester éthylique d'EAP [icosapent]) et les inhibiteurs de la proprotéine convertase subtilisine-kexine de type 9, et a précisé les moments où il convient de procéder à une prise de décision partagée avec les patients sur les interventions pour diminuer le risque cardiovasculaire. CONCLUSION: Ces lignes directrices actualisées et fondées sur des données probantes présentent une approche simplifiée de la prise en charge des lipides pour la prévention et le traitement des MCV. Ce guide de pratique clinique a été conçu par et pour des professionnels de la santé en soins primaires et leurs patients.

Bedtime versus morning use of antihypertensives for cardiovascular risk reduction (BedMed): protocol for a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point pragmatic trial.

INTRODUCTION: Sleep-time blood pressure correlates more strongly with adverse cardiovascular events than does daytime blood pressure. The BedMed trial evaluates whether bedtime antihypertensive administration, as compared with conventional morning use, reduces major adverse cardiovascular events. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: DesignProspective randomised, open-label, blinded end-point trial.ParticipantsHypertensive primary care patients using blood pressure lowering medication and free from glaucoma.SettingCommunity primary care providers in 5 Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario) are mailing invitations to their eligible patients. Social media campaigns (Google, Facebook) are additionally running in the same provinces.InterventionConsenting participants are allocated via central randomisation to bedtime vs morning use of all antihypertensives.Follow-up(1) Telephone or email questionnaire at 1 week, 6 weeks, 6 months and every 6 months thereafter, and (2) accessing linked governmental healthcare databases tracking hospital and community medical services.Primary outcomeComposite of all-cause death, or hospitalisation for myocardial infarction/acute-coronary syndrome, stroke or congestive heart failure.Secondary outcomesEach primary outcome element on its own, all-cause hospitalisation or emergency department visit, long-term care admission, non-vertebral fracture, new glaucoma diagnosis, 18-month cognitive decline from baseline (via Short Blessed Test).Select other outcomesSelf-reported nocturia burden at 6 weeks and 6 months (no, minor or major burden), 1-year self-reported overall health score (EQ-5D-5L), self-reported falls, total cost of care (acute and community over study duration) and mean sleep-time systolic blood pressure after 6 months (via 24-hour monitor in a subset of 302 sequential participants).Primary outcome analysisCox proportional hazards survival analysis.Sample sizeThe trial will continue until a projected 254 primary outcome events have occurred.Current statusEnrolment ongoing (3227 randomised to date). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: BedMed has ethics approval from six research ethics review boards and will publish results in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02990663.

PEER systematic review of randomized controlled trials: Management of chronic neuropathic pain in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of patients with neuropathic pain who achieve a clinically meaningful improvement in their pain with the use of different pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and a gray literature search. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials that reported a responder analysis of adults with neuropathic pain-specifically diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, or trigeminal neuralgia-treated with any of the following 8 treatments: exercise, acupuncture, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), topical rubefacients, opioids, anticonvulsant medications, and topical lidocaine. SYNTHESIS: A total of 67 randomized controlled trials were included. There was moderate certainty of evidence that anticonvulsant medications (risk ratio of 1.54; 95% CI 1.45 to 1.63; number needed to treat [NNT] of 7) and SNRIs (risk ratio of 1.45; 95% CI 1.33 to 1.59; NNT = 7) might provide a clinically meaningful benefit to patients with neuropathic pain. There was low certainty of evidence for a clinically meaningful benefit for rubefacients (ie, capsaicin; NNT = 7) and opioids (NNT = 8), and very low certainty of evidence for TCAs. Very low-quality evidence demonstrated that acupuncture was ineffective. All drug classes, except TCAs, had a greater likelihood of deriving a clinically meaningful benefit than having withdrawals due to adverse events (number needed to harm between 12 and 15). No trials met the inclusion criteria for exercise or lidocaine, nor were any trials identified for trigeminal neuralgia. CONCLUSION: There is moderate certainty of evidence that anticonvulsant medications and SNRIs provide a clinically meaningful reduction in pain in those with neuropathic pain, with lower certainty of evidence for rubefacients and opioids, and very low certainty of evidence for TCAs. Owing to low-quality evidence for many interventions, future high-quality trials that report responder analyses will be important to strengthen understanding of the relative benefits and harms of treatments in patients with neuropathic pain.