RESUMEN
Poor childhood cardiovascular health translates into poor adult cardiovascular health. We hypothesized care in a preventive cardiology clinic would improve cardiovascular health after lifestyle counseling. Over a median of 3.9 months, mean cardiovascular health score (range 0-11) improved from 5.8 ± 2.2 to 6.3 ± 2.1 (P < .001) in 767 children.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/prevención & control , Consejo Dirigido/métodos , Indicadores de Salud , Estilo de Vida Saludable , Factores de Riesgo de Enfermedad Cardiaca , Servicios Preventivos de Salud/métodos , Adolescente , Boston/epidemiología , Cardiología , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/diagnóstico , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/epidemiología , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/etiología , Niño , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Pediatría , Prevalencia , Estudios ProspectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Payer-type (government-sponsored health coverage versus private health insurance) has been shown to influence a variety of cardiovascular disease outcomes in adults. However, it is unclear if the payer-type impacts the response to a lifestyle intervention in children with dyslipidemia. METHODS: We analyzed data prospectively collected from patients under the age of 25 years who were referred to a large regional preventive cardiology clinic from 2010 to 2016 in Massachusetts. We compared baseline high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (TG), non-HDL-C, and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by payer-type. Further, we analyzed the change in lipid values in response to a clinic-based multidisciplinary intervention over a nearly six-year period by payer-type with multi-variable adjusted linear regression models. We also tested for effect modifications by age, sex, race, and body mass index (BMI) category. RESULTS: Of the 1739 eligible patients (mean age 13 years, 52% female, 60% overweight and obese, 59% White), we found that patients with government-sponsored coverage (n = 354, 20%) presented to referral lipid clinic with lower HDL-C (- 3.5 mg/dL [1.0], p < 0.001) and higher natural log-transformed TG (+ 0.14 [0.04], p < 0.001) as compared to those with private insurance; however, the association was attenuated to the null after additionally adjusting for BMI category (- 1.1 [0.9], p = 0.13, and + 0.05 [0.04], p = 0.2 for HDL-C and natural log-transformed TG, respectively). We found no difference in baseline LDL-C between payer-types (+ 3.4 mg/dL [3.0], p = 0.3). However, longitudinally, we found patients with private insurance and a self-reported race of White to have a clinically meaningful additional improvement in LDL-C, decreasing 12.8 (5.5) mg/dL (p = 0.02) between baseline and first follow-up, as compared to White patients with government-sponsored health coverage, after adjusting for age, sex, time between visits, and baseline LDL-C. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that youth with government-sponsored coverage are referred with poorer lipid profiles than those with private insurance, although this is largely explained by higher rates of overweight and obesity in the government-sponsored health coverage group. White patients with private insurance had substantially better improvement in LDL-C longitudinally, suggesting that higher socioeconomic status facilitates improvement in LDL-C, but is less beneficial for HDL-C and triglyceride levels.