Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations: Secondary Prevention of Stroke Update 2020.

The 2020 update of the Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations (CSBPR) for the Secondary Prevention of Stroke includes current evidence-based recommendations and expert opinions intended for use by clinicians across a broad range of settings. They provide guidance for the prevention of ischemic stroke recurrence through the identification and management of modifiable vascular risk factors. Recommendations address triage, diagnostic testing, lifestyle behaviors, vaping, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, other cardiac conditions, antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies, and carotid and vertebral artery disease. This update of the previous 2017 guideline contains several new or revised recommendations. Recommendations regarding triage and initial assessment of acute transient ischemic attack (TIA) and minor stroke have been simplified, and selected aspects of the etiological stroke workup are revised. Updated treatment recommendations based on new evidence have been made for dual antiplatelet therapy for TIA and minor stroke; anticoagulant therapy for atrial fibrillation; embolic strokes of undetermined source; low-density lipoprotein lowering; hypertriglyceridemia; diabetes treatment; and patent foramen ovale management. A new section has been added to provide practical guidance regarding temporary interruption of antithrombotic therapy for surgical procedures. Cancer-associated ischemic stroke is addressed. A section on virtual care delivery of secondary stroke prevention services in included to highlight a shifting paradigm of care delivery made more urgent by the global pandemic. In addition, where appropriate, sex differences as they pertain to treatments have been addressed. The CSBPR include supporting materials such as implementation resources to facilitate the adoption of evidence into practice and performance measures to enable monitoring of uptake and effectiveness of recommendations.

Physician Perspectives on the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) carries high morbidity and mortality. Compared with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HFpEF is difficult to diagnose, and lacks evidence-based treatments. In this survey we assessed perceptions of cardiologists, internists, and primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding HFpEF diagnosis and management. METHODS: In total, 159 cardiologists, 89 internists, and 200 PCPs from across Canada completed an online survey, with response rates of 14%-17%. RESULTS: The perceived prevalence of HFpEF vs HFrEF was similar across physician types (58% HFrEF, 42% HFpEF). Thirty-seven percent of PCPs did not differentiate HF on the basis of ejection fraction. All physician types ranked symptom and mortality reduction as treatment priorities. Ninety-two percent of specialists believed that HFpEF is best comanaged by PCPs and specialists, whereas one-fifth of PCPs suggested PCP management alone. Compared with specialists, PCPs were more likely to underestimate HFpEF mortality and less aware of sex differences in the prevalence of HFpEF vs HFrEF (all P < 0.001). Fewer PCPs use natriuretic peptides for diagnosis (P < 0.001). All physician types listed cost and availability as barriers to natriuretic peptide use. Ninety-one percent of PCPs incorrectly identified various therapies as effective for improving HFpEF outcomes. Most of all physicians expressed a strong desire to increase knowledge of diagnostic and treatment algorithms for HFpEF. CONCLUSIONS: There are substantial knowledge gaps in the diagnosis and management of HFpEF, particularly among PCPs. Because of the prevalence of HFpEF in primary care, strategies are required to reduce these gaps.

INTRODUCTION: L'insuffisance cardiaque (IC) à fraction d'éjection préservée (ICFEP) entraîne des taux élevés de morbidité et de mortalité. Comparativement à l'IC à fraction d'éjection réduite (ICFER), il est difficile de poser le diagnostic de l'ICFEP et de trouver des traitements fondés sur des données probantes. Dans cette enquête, nous avons évalué la perception des cardiologues, des internistes et des médecins de premier recours (MPR) concernant le diagnostic et la prise en charge de l'ICFEP. MÉTHODES: Au total, 159 cardiologues, 89 internistes et 200 MPR du Canada ont rempli l'enquête en ligne. Le taux de réponse a été de 14 % à 17 %. RÉSULTATS: Tous les types de médecins percevaient une prévalence similaire entre l'ICFEP et l'ICFER (58 % ICFER, 42 % ICFEP). Trente-sept pour cent des MPR ne différenciaient pas l'IC en fonction de la fraction d'éjection. Tous les types de médecins donnaient la priorité de traitement à la réduction des symptômes et de la mortalité. Quatre-vingt-douze pour cent des spécialistes croyaient que la prise en charge commune de l'ICFEP par les MPR et les spécialistes était préférable, tandis qu'un cinquième des MPR suggéraient une prise en charge par le MPR seul. Comparativement aux spécialistes, il était plus probable que les MPR sous-estiment la mortalité liée à l'ICFEP et qu'ils soient moins au fait des différences entre les sexes dans la prévalence de l'ICFEP vs l'ICFER (toutes les valeurs p < 0,001). Un plus petit nombre de MPR utilisent les peptides natriurétiques pour le diagnostic (P < 0,001). Tous les types de médecins ont considéré les coûts et la disponibilité comme des obstacles à l'utilisation des peptides natriurétiques. Quatre-vingt-onze pour cent des MPR ont considéré à tort que les diverses thérapies étaient efficaces pour améliorer les résultats de l'ICFEP. La plupart des médecins ont fait part de leur profond désir de rehausser leurs connaissances sur les algorithmes diagnostiques et thérapeutiques de l'ICFEP. CONCLUSIONS: Il existe des lacunes substantielles dans les connaissances en matière de diagnostic et de prise en charge de l'ICFEP, particulièrement des lacunes dans les connaissances des MPR. En raison de la prévalence de l'ICFEP dans les soins primaires, des stratégies sont nécessaires pour combler ces lacunes.

2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidemia for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults.

The 2021 guidelines primary panel selected clinically relevant questions and produced updated recommendations, on the basis of important new findings that have emerged since the 2016 guidelines. In patients with clinical atherosclerosis, abdominal aortic aneurysm, most patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease, and those with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥ 5 mmol/L, statin therapy continues to be recommended. We have introduced the concept of lipid/lipoprotein treatment thresholds for intensifying lipid-lowering therapy with nonstatin agents, and have identified the secondary prevention patients who have been shown to derive the largest benefit from intensification of therapy with these agents. For all other patients, we emphasize risk assessment linked to lipid/lipoprotein evaluation to optimize clinical decision-making. Lipoprotein(a) measurement is now recommended once in a patient's lifetime, as part of initial lipid screening to assess cardiovascular risk. For any patient with triglycerides ˃ 1.5 mmol/L, either non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol or apolipoprotein B are the preferred lipid parameter for screening, rather than low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. We provide updated recommendations regarding the role of coronary artery calcium scoring as a clinical decision tool to aid the decision to initiate statin therapy. There are new recommendations on the preventative care of women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Health behaviour modification, including regular exercise and a heart-healthy diet, remain the cornerstone of cardiovascular disease prevention. These guidelines are intended to provide a platform for meaningful conversation and shared-decision making between patient and care provider, so that individual decisions can be made for risk screening, assessment, and treatment.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) use and dosing in Canadian practice: Insights from the optimising pharmacotherapy in the management approach to lowering risk in atrial fibrillation (OPTIMAL AF) Programme.

AIMS: To estimate the rate of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant (NOAC) dosing that is lower- and higher-than-recommended and to describe the reasons for NOAC dose discordance with Health Canada prescribing information. METHODS: The OPTIMAL AF Programme was an observational cohort quality assessment initiative in which primary and specialty care physicians in eight provinces provided a snapshot of their anticoagulated non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients through either an electronic medical record (EMR) system or standardised, paper-based data collection methods. RESULTS: Data on 1681 NVAF patients receiving oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention was provided by 102 physicians. A NOAC was prescribed in 1379 patients (8%). The standard recommended dose was prescribed in 849 (76%) and reduced dose in 264 (24%). Concordance of the reduced dose with Health Canada prescribing information occurred in 154 patients (58%). The standard dose was concordant in 805 (95%). The main reasons for the use of discordant reduced doses were age of 80 years or more, elevated creatinine, prior bleeding or dose recommended by specialist. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The vast majority of Canadian patients meeting the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) guideline recommendations for OAC to decrease AF-related stroke risk were receiving product monograph-concordant NOAC dosing (85%). Nonetheless, this highlights the fact that an important proportion of patients were prescribed doses that are discordant and opportunities remain to improve NOAC dosing to optimise stroke prevention.

Diabetes Canada 2018 clinical practice guidelines: Key messages for family physicians caring for patients living with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the 2018 Diabetes Canada clinical practice guidelines, focusing on high-priority recommendations for FPs managing people who live with type 2 diabetes. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: A prioritization process was conducted to focus the efforts of Diabetes Canada's guideline dissemination and implementation efforts. The resulting identified key messages for FPs to consider when managing patients with type 2 diabetes are described. Evidence supporting the guideline recommendations ranges from levels I to IV and grades A to D. MAIN MESSAGE: Three key messages were identified from the 2018 guidelines as priorities for FPs: discussing opportunities to reduce the risk of diabetes complications, discussing opportunities to ensure safety and prevent hypoglycemia, and discussing progress on self-management goals and addressing barriers. A theme cutting across these key messages was the need to tailor discussions to the needs and preferences of each person. These important guideline recommendations are highlighted, along with information about relevant tools for implementing the recommendations in real-world practice. CONCLUSION: High-quality diabetes care involves a series of periodic conversations about self-management and about pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments that fit with each patient's goals (ie, shared decision making). Incorporating these conversations into regular practice provides FPs with opportunities to maximize likely benefits of treatments and decrease the risk of harms, to support patients in initiating and sustaining desired lifestyle changes, and to help patients cope with the burdens of diabetes and comorbid conditions.

Lignes directrices de pratique clinique 2018 de Diabète Canada: Principaux messages à l'intention des médecins de famille qui traitent les patients atteints de diabète de type 2.

OBJECTIF: Résumer les lignes directrices de pratique clinique 2018 de Diabète Canada en s'attardant aux recommandations prioritaires pour les médecins de famille qui traitent des personnes vivant avec le diabète de type 2. QUALITÉ DES DONNÉES: Un processus de priorisation a été réalisé dans le but de canaliser les efforts de dissémination et de mise en oeuvre des lignes directrices de Diabète Canada. Il en a résulté une description des principaux messages à l'intention des médecins de famille qui soignent des patients de diabète de type 2. Les données étayant les recommandations des lignes directrices varient des niveaux I à IV, et des catégories A à D. MESSAGE PRINCIPAL: Trois principaux messages prioritaires pour les médecins de famille ont été relevés dans les lignes directrices 2018 : parler des occasions de réduire le risque de complications du diabète, parler des occasions d'assurer la sécurité et de prévenir l'hypoglycémie, et parler des progrès vers l'atteinte des objectifs d'autoprise en charge et de l'élimination des obstacles. Ces principaux messages ont fait ressortir un thème : celui d'adapter les conversations aux besoins et aux préférences de chacun. Ces importantes recommandations sont mises en lumière, de même que l'information sur les outils pertinents pour mettre en oeuvre les recommandations en pratique réelle. CONCLUSION: Les soins du diabète de grande qualité comprennent une série de conversations périodiques sur l'autoprise en charge, et sur les traitements pharmacologiques et non pharmacologiques adaptés aux objectifs de chaque patient (c.-à-d. prise de décision partagée). Lorsque les médecins de famille incorporent ces conversations dans la pratique régulière, ils ont la chance d'optimiser les bienfaits possibles du traitement et de réduire le risque d'effets nuisibles, d'encourager les patients à instaurer et à maintenir les modifications désirées du mode de vie, et de les aider à composer avec le fardeau du diabète et des comorbidités.

Prediction of Familial Hypercholesterolemia in Patients at High Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Using a Recently Validated Algorithm.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is 1 of 250 in the general population and approximately 1 of 125 in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), yet only a minority are diagnosed. The diagnostic criteria for FH rely on a point system using low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), family history, cutaneous manifestations, and molecular diagnosis. The aim of the present study was to determine the prevalence of FH in the Relating Evidence to Achieve Cholesterol Targets (REACT) registry. METHODS: Patients were enrolled as ASCVD (n = 86) or FH (n = 109) and with an LDL-C level > 3.0 mmol/L despite maximally tolerated statin therapy. FH was diagnosed clinically using a validated clinical application integrating an imputation for baseline (untreated) LDL-C levels. RESULTS: There were 109 men and 86 women with a mean age of 63 ± 12 years. Diabetes (29.7%), hypertension (62.1%), smoking (37.9%), and family history of premature ASCVD (59.5%) were common. On-treatment LDL-C was 4.26 ± 0.94 mmol/L. On the basis of the dose and type of statin ± ezetimibe, imputed baseline LDL-C was 7.04 ± 2.90 mmol/L. A diagnosis of probable/definite FH was found in 54.7%, 49.5%, and 61.5% of patients according to the Simon Broome, Dutch Lipid Clinic Network criteria, and the new Canadian FH definition, respectively. Of note, 40% of patients in the ASCVD inclusion subgroup had probable or definite FH. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals that a substantial proportion of patients with ASCVD whose LDL-C levels are > 3.0 mmol/L despite maximally tolerated statins have heterozygous FH. Clinicians should consider using the recently described algorithm to assess the possibility of FH in this high-risk population.

CONTEXTE: La prévalence de l'hypercholestérolémie familiale (HF) hétérozygote est de 1 cas sur 250 dans la population générale et d'environ 1 cas sur 125 chez les patients atteints d'une maladie cardiovasculaire athérosclérotique (MCVAS), pourtant on ne la diagnostique que dans une minorité de cas. Les critères diagnostiques de l'HF reposent sur un système de points utilisant comme paramètres le cholestérol à lipoprotéines de faible densité (C-LDL), les antécédents familiaux, les manifestations cutanées et le diagnostic moléculaire. La présente étude visait à déterminer la prévalence de l'HF parmi les patients répertoriés dans le registre REACT (Relating Evidence to Achieve Cholesterol Targets). MÉTHODOLOGIE: Les patients admis à l'étude étaient considérés comme étant atteints d'une MCVAS (n = 86) ou d'une HF (n = 109) et présentaient un taux de C-LDL > 3,0 mmol/l malgré la prise d'un traitement par statine à la dose maximale tolérée. L'HF a été diagnostiquée sur le plan clinique à l'aide d'une application clinique validée incluant une imputation des taux de C-LDL initiaux (en l'absence de traitement). RÉSULTATS: L'étude comptait 86 femmes et 109 hommes âgés en moyenne de 63 ± 12 ans. Le diabète (29,7 %), l'hypertension (62,1 %), le tabagisme (37,9 %) et les antécédents familiaux de MCVAS prématurée (59,5 %) étaient fréquents. Sous traitement, le taux de C-LDL était de 4,26 ± 0,94 mmol/l. D'après la dose et le type de statine ± ézétimibe administrés, le taux de C-LDL imputé au départ était de 7,04 ± 2,90 mmol/l. Un diagnostic d'HF probable ou certaine a été établi respectivement chez 54,7 %, 49,5 % et 61,5 % des patients selon les critères de Simon Broome et du Dutch Lipid Clinic Network, ainsi que la nouvelle définition canadienne de l'HF. Notons que 40 % des patients dans le sous-groupe d'inclusion de la MCVAS présentaient une HF probable ou certaine. CONCLUSIONS: Notre étude révèle qu'une proportion importante de patients atteints de MCVAS dont les taux de C-LDL sont > 3,0 mmol/l malgré la prise de statines à la dose maximale tolérée présentent une HF hétérozygote. Les cliniciens devraient envisager d'utiliser l'algorithme récemment décrit pour évaluer la présence possible d'une HF dans cette population à haut risque.

2016 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidemia for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in the Adult.

Since the publication of the 2012 guidelines new literature has emerged to inform decision-making. The 2016 guidelines primary panel selected a number of clinically relevant questions and has produced updated recommendations, on the basis of important new findings. In subjects with clinical atherosclerosis, abdominal aortic aneurysm, most subjects with diabetes or chronic kidney disease, and those with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥ 5 mmol/L, statin therapy is recommended. For all others, there is an emphasis on risk assessment linked to lipid determination to optimize decision-making. We have recommended nonfasting lipid determination as a suitable alternative to fasting levels. Risk assessment and lipid determination should be considered in individuals older than 40 years of age or in those at increased risk regardless of age. Pharmacotherapy is generally not indicated for those at low Framingham Risk Score (FRS; <10%). A wider range of patients are now eligible for statin therapy in the FRS intermediate risk category (10%-19%) and in those with a high FRS (> 20%). Despite the controversy, we continue to advocate for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets for subjects who start therapy. Detailed recommendations are also presented for health behaviour modification that is indicated in all subjects. Finally, recommendation for the use of nonstatin medications is provided. Shared decision-making is vital because there are many areas in which clinical trials do not fully inform practice. The guidelines are meant to be a platform for meaningful conversation between patient and care provider so that individual decisions can be made for risk screening, assessment, and treatment.

Bisphosphonates for treatment of osteoporosis: expected benefits, potential harms, and drug holidays.

OBJECTIVE: To outline the efficacy and risks of bisphosphonate therapy for the management of osteoporosis and describe which patients might be eligible for bisphosphonate "drug holiday." QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: MEDLINE (PubMed, through December 31, 2012) was used to identify relevant publications for inclusion. Most of the evidence cited is level II evidence (non-randomized, cohort, and other comparisons trials). MAIN MESSAGE: The antifracture efficacy of approved first-line bisphosphonates has been proven in randomized controlled clinical trials. However, with more extensive and prolonged clinical use of bisphosphonates, associations have been reported between their administration and the occurrence of rare, but serious, adverse events. Osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femur fractures might be related to the use of bisphosphonates in osteoporosis, but they are exceedingly rare and they often occur with other comorbidities or concomitant medication use. Drug holidays should only be considered in low-risk patients and in select patients at moderate risk of fracture after 3 to 5 years of therapy. CONCLUSION: When bisphosphonates are prescribed to patients at high risk of fracture, their antifracture benefits considerably outweigh their potential for harm. For patients taking bisphosphonates for 3 to 5 years, reassess the need for ongoing therapy.

Denosumab, a new pharmacotherapy option for postmenopausal osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: According to the 2010 Osteoporosis Canada Clinical Practice Guidelines, denosumab is a first-line option for the pharmacological management of postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO), along with several therapeutics that may be more familiar to family practice doctors: bisphosphonates, raloxifene, teriparatide, and hormone therapy. Denosumab is indicated for postmenopausal patients at high risk for fracture or others who have failed, or are intolerant to, other osteoporosis therapies. SCOPE: We undertook a review of the efficacy and safety of denosumab in PMO, searching the English-language literature on this drug via PubMed queries as of July 2012. FINDINGS: Although established treatments reduce fracture risk among osteoporotic postmenopausal women in trials, their effectiveness in clinical practice is limited by patient adherence. Twice-yearly denosumab treatment is associated with markedly improved bone mineral density (BMD) and cortical and trabecular bone strength, and significantly reduced osteoporotic fracture. Inhibition of bone resorption is fully reversible following discontinuation. Placebo-controlled and open-label extension studies showed similar adverse event (AE) and serious AE rates, relative to placebo, over up to 5 years. Data indicate a potential advantage of denosumab over the bisphosphonate alendronate for BMD and patient adherence and preference. CONCLUSION: Owing to its efficacy, safety, and potential to improve adherence rates, denosumab is an appropriate first-line pharmacologic option for PMO management.