n-3 fatty acids in patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Trials have shown a beneficial effect of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in patients with a previous myocardial infarction or heart failure. We evaluated the potential benefit of such therapy in patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors or atherosclerotic vascular disease who had not had a myocardial infarction. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, we enrolled a cohort of patients who were followed by a network of 860 general practitioners in Italy. Eligible patients were men and women with multiple cardiovascular risk factors or atherosclerotic vascular disease but not myocardial infarction. Patients were randomly assigned to n-3 fatty acids (1 g daily) or placebo (olive oil). The initially specified primary end point was the cumulative rate of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. At 1 year, after the event rate was found to be lower than anticipated, the primary end point was revised as time to death from cardiovascular causes or admission to the hospital for cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: Of the 12,513 patients enrolled, 6244 were randomly assigned to n-3 fatty acids and 6269 to placebo. With a median of 5 years of follow-up, the primary end point occurred in 1478 of 12,505 patients included in the analysis (11.8%), of whom 733 of 6239 (11.7%) had received n-3 fatty acids and 745 of 6266 (11.9%) had received placebo (adjusted hazard ratio with n-3 fatty acids, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.08; P=0.58). The same null results were observed for all the secondary end points. CONCLUSIONS: In a large general-practice cohort of patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors, daily treatment with n-3 fatty acids did not reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. (Funded by Società Prodotti Antibiotici and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00317707.).

Is global cardiovascular risk considered in current practice? Treatment and control of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes according to patients' risk level.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the pharmacological treatment and the control of major modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in everyday practice according to the patients' cardiovascular risk level. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study general practitioners (GPs) had to identify a random sample of their patients with cardiovascular risk factors or diseases and collect essential data on the pharmacological treatment and control of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes according to the patients' cardiovascular risk level and history of cardiovascular disease. Participants were subjects of both sexes, aged 40-80 years, with at least one known cardiovascular risk factor or a history of cardiovascular diseases. RESULTS: From June to December 2000, 162 Italian GPs enrolled 3120 of their patients (2470 hypertensives, 1373 hyperlipidemics, and 604 diabetics). Despite the positive association between the perceived level of global cardiovascular risk and lipid-lowering drug prescriptions in hyperlipidemic subjects (from 26% for lowest risk to 56% for highest risk p < 0.0001) or the prescription of combination therapy in hypertensives (from 41% to 70%, p < 0.0001) and diabetics (from 24% to 43%, p = 0.057), control was still inadequate in 48% of diabetics, 77% of hypertensives, and 85% of hyperlipidemics, with no increase in patients at highest risk. Trends for treatment and control were similar in patients with cardiovascular diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Even in high-risk patients, despite a tendency towards more intensive treatment, pharmacological therapy is still under used and the degree of control of blood pressure, cholesterol level and diabetes is largely unsatisfactory.

Improving cardiovascular prevention in general practice: Results of a comprehensive personalized strategy in subjects at high risk.

BACKGROUND: Although high cardiovascular risk patients should be the main target of preventive strategies, modifiable risk factors are often inadequately controlled. AIM: To assess feasibility and results of a comprehensive personalized method for cardiovascular prevention in high risk patients followed by their general practitioner. METHODS: Between 2004 and 2007, 12,513 patients (mean age 64.0 ± 9.5 years; 61.5% males) with multiple cardiovascular risk factors or history of atherosclerotic disease were identified and followed for five years. If control of major modifiable cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, diabetes, obesity, smoking, unhealthy diet, physical inactivity) was sub-optimal, at baseline and yearly thereafter general practitioners planned with patients, with the help of a brief checklist, preventive interventions to improve the global risk profile. Main outcome was the control of the seven major modifiable cardiovascular risk factors during follow-up. Secondary outcome was the incidence of cardiovascular deaths and hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons according to the improvement in global cardiovascular risk profile during the first year. RESULTS: Control of all major modifiable risk factors except physical inactivity improved gradually and significantly (p < 0.0001) during follow-up.The improvement in the global cardiovascular risk profile during the first year was independently and significantly associated with a lower rate of major cardiovascular events in the following years (hazard ratio 0.939; 95% confidence interval 0.887-0.994, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our comprehensive, personalized method for cardiovascular risk prevention in people at high risk appears feasible in general practice. The improvement in the global cardiovascular risk profile was associated with a better prognosis.

Primary care as a permanent setting for research.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: The critical importance of a closer and structural involvement of primary care in research has been increasingly recognized over the last several years, and has been the object of extensive conceptual and institutional debates and proposals. There is, however, still a gap between the consistency of the recommendations and their translation into practice. METHODS: Based on the most recent literature on the integration of the paradigm of efficacy (evidence-based medicine) with the one on outcomes-effectiveness, as well as on the experience gained with large collaborative studies performed by Italian general practitioners (GPs), the paper discusses the reasons for giving priority to what could be done to bridge the gap and the conditions of feasibility. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Specifically, the results obtained most recently in a large-scale, epidemiological and experimental project with a prospective cohort of ∼12,500 subjects included by 860 GPs across the country in the field of cardiovascular risk prevention (the Rischio e Prevenzione Study) provide the concrete framework for an agenda of action proposed as a way forward, which appears to be highly critical for visibility and cultural autonomy of GPs also at the European level.

Pain in primary care: an Italian survey.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a universal symptom of various pathologies and largely affects human well-being. Pain is therefore commonly observed by general practitioners (GPs) and its management is a useful indicator of quality. In our study we investigated the epidemiology and management of pain in Italian general practice. METHODS: Participating GPs were asked to record the first out of every two contacts with pain during two working weeks between November 2000 and February 2001. They entered information on type of pain, pain-related diagnosis, certainty of diagnosis and types of prescription. RESULTS: 89 GPs participated in the study. About one third of all reported contacts were with pain. The number of contacts analysed was 1432. Nearly half the cases were diagnosed as acute. The main complaints were of musculoskeletal and abdominal origin. Pain was 1.5 times more frequent in women than men and the female to male ratios for acute and chronic pain were 1.2:1 and 1.8:1 respectively. The most frequent site of pain was the limbs. 'Arthropathies and related disorders', 'dorsopathies' and 'rheumatism excluding the back' were the commonest groups of diagnoses. Approximately two thirds of contacts with pain led to a drug prescription. CONCLUSIONS: The study identified a high proportion of contacts with pain in Italian general practice, with widespread use of drugs. The distribution of chronic and acute pain was rather similar and musculoskeletal pain was the most frequent form. Most types of prescriptions were closely related to certainty of diagnosis.

Appropriate use of antiplatelets: is prescription in daily practice influenced by the global cardiovascular risk?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the appropriate prescription of antiplatelets according to patients' global cardiovascular risk level in everyday practice. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, general practitioners (GPs) identified a random sample of 10% of patients at cardiovascular risk among all subjects coming to the surgery and collected data on cardiovascular risk factors and history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (CVD). GPs were asked to do a physical examination and record the results of laboratory tests to define the global cardiovascular risk. The use of antiplatelet drugs in patients with established CVD and in healthy subjects at high risk of developing symptomatic atherosclerotic disease was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 162 GPs from all over Italy recruited 3,120 subjects (51% female, mean age 64 years). Of the 949 with an indication for antiplatelet treatment for secondary prevention of CVD, 442 (47%) were receiving it. Among the 2,071 without CVD, 11% were taking an antiplatelet drug. In this group, antiplatelets were prescribed in 6, 10, 16 and 23%, respectively, of patients perceived by GPs to be at mild, moderate, high and very high cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription of antiplatelets still seems to be far from what is recommended in virtually all patients with a history of CVD. In subjects with cardiovascular risk factors but without CVD antiplatelet prescription increases in relation to global cardiovascular risk but is still low in patients at high or very high risk of cardiovascular events.

How general practitioners perceive and grade the cardiovascular risk of their patients.

BACKGROUND: Although risk assessment charts have been proposed to identify patients at high cardiovascular risk, in everyday practice general practitioners (GPs) often use their knowledge of the patients to estimate the risk subjectively. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study aimed to describe how GPs perceive, qualify and grade cardiovascular risk in everyday practice. METHODS: General practitioners had to identify in a random sample of 10% of their contacts the first 20 consecutive patients perceived as being at cardiovascular risk. For each patient essential data were collected on clinical history, physical examination and laboratory tests, for the qualification of risk. At the end of the process GPs subjectively estimated the overall patient's level of risk. General practitioners grading was compared with the risk estimate from a reference chart. RESULTS: Over a mean time of 25 days 3120 patients perceived as being at cardiovascular risk were enrolled. According to the inclusion scheme each GP had contact with more than 200 patients at cardiovascular risk every month. Thirty percent of these patients had atherosclerotic diseases. Up to 72% of patients without any history of atherosclerotic diseases but perceived to be at risk could be classified according to a reference chart as being at moderate to very high risk. Comparing GPs' grading of risk with a chart estimate there was agreement in 42% of the cases. Major determinants of GPs' underestimation of risk were age, sex and smoking habits, while obesity and family history were independently associated with overestimation. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of their perception GPs properly identify patients at cardiovascular risk in the majority of cases. General practitioners subjective grading of risk level only partially agreed with that given by a chart.