Are we giving patients enough information on how to use topical treatments? Analysis of 767 prescriptions in psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Unclear instructions probably contribute to the suboptimal efficacy and adherence to topical agents in psoriasis. OBJECTIVES: To analyse the quality of prescriptions for topical therapy in psoriasis and to determine factors associated with high-quality prescription writing. METHODS: We made a systematic analysis of 767 topical prescriptions written by dermatologists and general practitioners (GPs). The following parameters were recorded: writing mode (electronic vs. hand written), indication of formulation, frequency of administration, duration of treatment, indication of areas to be treated, and indication of amount of product to be used. We considered prescriptions of high quality to be those including at least four of the five prospectively defined quality parameters. RESULTS: Only 35·7% of prescriptions fulfilled the definition of a high-quality prescription. Quality of prescription writing was significantly influenced by two factors: electronic writing [odds ratio (OR) 3·04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2·2-4·21; P < 10(-4) ] and specialty of the prescriber, dermatologists writing higher quality prescriptions compared with GPs (OR 1·61, 95% CI 1·54-2·14; P < 10(-4) ). CONCLUSIONS: Almost two-thirds of topical prescriptions are not adequately written and do not include the required information to help patients manage their topical treatment in psoriasis correctly. The quality of topical prescriptions could be improved by making the use of electronic prescriptions widespread and by the development of aids for easy evaluation of the right amount of topical treatment to be applied according to body surface area involved.

Long-term achievement of the therapeutic objectives of lipid-lowering agents in primary prevention patients and cardiovascular outcomes: an observational study.

AIMS: Lowering elevated cholesterol levels reduces cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. Nonetheless, most patients treated with lipid-lowering agents (LLA) do not reach recommended therapeutic objectives. In a setting of primary care in France, we investigated the association between LDL-cholesterol goal attainment and the occurrence of CV events in primary prevention patients with multiple CV risk factors (> or = 3). According to national guidelines, the therapeutic objective (TO) for such patients is an LDL-cholesterol value below 130 mg/dL. METHODS: 579 patients treated with LLA and with LDL-cholesterol values documented at least once a year over a period of at least 3 years (2000-2002) were allocated to three groups based on the number of years the TO was attained during the follow-up period: in all 3 years (TO+++: n=145), only part of the time (TO intermediate: n=256), and never (TO---: n=178). CV events (angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, peripheral artery disease) occurring during the last year of observation (2002) were retrospectively collected. The occurrence risk (OR) of CV events was assessed based on TO status, with a logistic regression model to adjust for baseline differences in CV risk factors. RESULTS: Only a quarter of patients attained TO during all 3 study years. CV events during the third year of observation occurred in 5.5%, 10.5% and 12.9% of patients in the TO+++, TO intermediate and TO--- groups, respectively. Compared with TO+++ patients, the risk of CV events increased significantly in TO intermediate (OR=2.34, 95% CI=[1.01-5.39]) and TO--- patients (OR=2.99, 95% CI=[1.26-7.08]). CONCLUSION: In real practice, a prolonged attainment of TO is rarely observed in high CV risk patients treated with LLA as primary prevention. Therapeutic failure is related to an increased incidence of cardiovascular morbidity. Our data strongly support the need to improve adherence to treatment guidelines to achieve effective cardiovascular prevention.

Ineffectiveness of lipid-lowering therapy in primary care.

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.