Satisfaction and Perceived Barriers of General Practice Residents in Relation to Their Educational Needs Coverage During Residency in Greece.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess satisfaction and report on perceptions of General Practice (GP) residents during residency in Greece, through an online questionnaire at a national level. Material and methods:A mixed type method study was shaped. Both quantitative analysis and a quasiqualitative approach were used, while information from an open-ended question was processed. The study included answers of GP residents recruited with a national sample pool technique. Results:There were 177 responders from 430 registered residents. Using a grading system from 1 to 10, the median value showing how much satisfied the participants were during their training was 4.48 (95% CI 4.16-4.79), while GP logbook was regarded as useful (median value 6.29, 95% CI 5.84-6.73). The training program was reported as insufficient to prepare residents for their future work as primary health care physicians, with a median rating of 4.09 (95% CI 3.78-4.41). The overall educational gain was regarded as poor compared to residents' expectations, with a median rating of 4.71 (95% CI 4.38-5.07). From free text responses of 83 participants, an organized educational program based on logbook skill acquirement with interaction between coordinator and resident emerged as a priority. Conclusion: Understanding general practitioners' perceptions, satisfaction level and expectations may help to design reform initiatives and cover their educational needs during residency in a holistic manner. Experience from local settings may be useful to offer more comprehensive messages. In a rapidly changing health environment, quickly collecting and analyzing emerging data appears to be a practical way for correcting decisions and avoiding previous errors.

Asymptomatic hyperCKemia during a two-year monitoring period: A case report and literature overview.

High creatine kinase (CK) levels can be associated with many disorders, including neuromuscular, cardiac, metabolic, endocrine and traumatic. Idiopathic hyperCKemia is a diagnostic dilemma for physicians even though its long-term prognosis is usually benign. We report a case of a Caucasian 61-year-old woman who presented as completely asymptomatic to her general practitioner with a serum CK (sCK) level at 6,122 IU/l. A complete diagnostic evaluation, including physical and laboratory examinations, electromyogram and muscle biopsy were negative for any neuromuscular or other disorder. Two years later the patient remains asymptomatic, active and overall healthy but sCK levels remain elevated, ≤6,591 IU/l (>50-fold higher than normal values).

Additional antihypertensive effect of drugs in hypertensive subjects uncontrolled on diltiazem monotherapy: a randomized controlled trial using office and home blood pressure monitoring.

The purpose of this study was to compare several diltiazem-based antihypertensive drug combinations and assess the usefulness of home blood pressure monitoring in the evaluation of the efficacy of combination pharmacotherapy. Sixteen general practitioners recruited hypertensive subjects uncontrolled on diltiazem monotherapy, who were randomized to receive eight weeks of add-on therapy with a diuretic (chlorthalidone), a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist (felodipine), an ACE inhibitor (lisinopril), or an angiotensin blocker (valsartan). Sitting office and home blood pressure was measured using electronic devices A&D 767. A total of 211 patients were randomized, and 185 completed the study. Of 52 subjects randomized to felodipine, 15 were withdrawn due to ankle edema. The additional antihypertensive effect of the second drug was smaller in 18 subjects with a white coat effect (p < 0.01). All combinations produced a significant decline in office (21.2 +/- 14.8 / 7.7 +/- 9.7 mmHg) and home (17.1 +/- 11.9 / 6.0 +/- 7.0) blood pressure (systolic / diastolic, p < 0.001). There were no differences in the efficacy of the four combinations assessed using office or home blood pressure monitoring. These data suggest that diuretics, dihydropyridines, ACE inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers provide significant additional antihypertensive effects in hypertensive patients uncontrolled on diltiazem monotherapy. The diltiazem-dihydropyridine combination is often intolerable because of ankle edema. Home blood pressure monitoring is useful in the assessment of the efficacy of combination pharmacotherapy and also allows for the detection of subjects who do not require treatment intensification.

Effect of statins and aspirin alone and in combination on clinical outcome in dyslipidaemic patients with coronary heart disease. A subgroup analysis of the GREACE study.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST: The GREACE study was conducted independently; no Company or Institution has supported it financially. Some of the authors have attended conferences and participated in other trials sponsored by various pharmaceutical companies. We assessed the possible 'synergy' of statins and aspirin (ASA) in reducing vascular events in patients with coronary heart disease, in a post hoc analysis of the GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) study. All patients (n = 1600) were divided into four groups according to long-term treatment: Group A (n = 787; statin + ASA), B (n = 93; statin - no ASA), C (n = 599; no statin - on ASA) and D (n = 121; no statin - no ASA). From all patients 692 were either on a statin or ASA monotherapy (Groups B + C). Relative risk reductions (RRRs) in 'all events' (primary endpoint) between groups were assessed. During the 3-year follow-up there were 292 cardiovascular events; 92 (12% of patients) in Group A, 14 (15%) in group B, 144 in Group C (24%) and 42 events in Group D (35%). The total number of events in Group B + C was 158 (23%). The RRRs in the primary endpoint were: Group A versus B 24% (P = 0.1912), A versus C 51% (P < 0.0001), A versus B + C 49% (P < 0.0001) and A versus D 71% (P < 0.0001). The RRRs in Group B versus C was 36% (P = 0.0431) and B versus D 57% (P = 0.0012), while in C versus D 33% (P = 0.0084). Our findings show that statins and ASA have an additive effect in reducing cardiovascular events. Aggressive statin use in the absence of ASA also substantially reduced cardiovascular events. Treatment with ASA in the absence of statin use reduced clinical events in comparison to patients not treated with either drug.

Prevalence of atherosclerotic vascular disease among subjects with the metabolic syndrome with or without diabetes mellitus: the METS-GREECE Multicentre Study.

AIMS: To estimate the prevalence of vascular disease (coronary heart disease/stroke/peripheral arterial disease) in individuals with the metabolic syndrome (MetSyn) with or without diabetes mellitus (DM) when compared with subjects without the MetSyn. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of a representative sample of Greek adults (n = 4153), men and women (49% and 51%, respectively), living in urban, semi-urban and rural areas (54%, 25% and 21%, respectively). The National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel III definition of the MetSyn was used. RESULTS: The age-adjusted prevalence of the MetSyn was 23.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 22.4%-25.1%]; this was similar in men and women. The fully adjusted prevalence of vascular disease in those with the MetSyn (n = 984) was 29.4%, significantly higher than in those without (n = 3169, 9.6%, p < 0.0001), while subjects without both the MetSyn and DM had the lowest vascular disease prevalence (n = 3035, 8.9%). Subjects with the MetSyn but no DM (n = 674) had a vascular disease prevalence of 24.1% (p < 0.0001 vs. those without the MetSyn), which was similar to that in subjects with DM without the MetSyn (n = 134, 25.4%), but lower than in those with both the MetSyn and DM (n = 310, 40.7%, p < 0.0001 vs. all). In comparison to those without the MetSyn [odds ratio (OR) = 1], the ORs of prevalent vascular disease, after multivariate analysis for age, sex and components of the MetSyn, and antiatherosclerotic drugs were: all MetSyn = 1.94 (95% CI = 1.35-2.47), with both MetSyn and DM = 3.04 (95% CI = 1.98-4.11) and with MetSyn but no DM = 1.48 (95% CI = 1.12-1.92). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of vascular disease was markedly increased in the presence of the MetSyn. Those with both the MetSyn and DM had the highest prevalence of vascular disease, followed by those with the MetSyn without DM. Probably MetSyn without DM should be considered as a coronary heart disease-risk equivalent in future guidelines. This initiative would reset treatment targets and potentially provide additional benefit in patients with the MetSyn.

Relationship between LDL-C and non-HDL-C levels and clinical outcome in the GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) Study.

BACKGROUND: Although available guidelines suggest reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) to below 100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L), the importance of target-oriented therapy remains controversial. To assess whether achieving guideline-based targets is of benefit, the relationship between clinical outcomes and lipid levels (baseline and on-study) was evaluated in the GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) study. This study demonstrated significant reductions in morbidity and mortality associated with active dose titration of atorvastatin and structured management of dyslipidaemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis (Cox proportional hazards model) was used to assess the relationship between lipid values and coronary events. Higher levels of LDL-C at baseline were associated with a greater risk of subsequent events among patients randomized to usual care. Reducing the LDL-C and the non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) level to the National Cholesterol Educational Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III goals required greater doses of atorvastatin for the higher baseline quartile of LDL-C. During the study there was a greater reduction in the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) events in atorvastatin-treated patients who were in the highest quartile of LDL-C at baseline, after achieving the LDL-C treatment goal, in comparison to the usual care patients in the highest baseline LDL-C quartile. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving the NCEP ATP III LDL-C and non-HDL-C goals by titrating up the dose of atorvastatin was associated with a significant reduction in vascular events in patients with CHD. The greatest benefit was seen in those patients with the highest baseline LDL-C levels.

Effect of atorvastatin on high density lipoprotein cholesterol and its relationship with coronary events: a subgroup analysis of the GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between changes in high density lipoprotein cholesterol(HDL-C) levels after statin treatment and the risk for coronary heart disease (CHD)-related events in the secondary CHD prevention GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary heart disease Evaluation (GREACE) Study. These findings suggested that dose titration with atorvastatin (10-80 mg/day, mean 24 mg/day)achieves the National Cholesterol Educational Program treatment goals and significantly reduces morbidity and mortality, in comparison to usual care. METHODS: Analysis of variance was used to assess the effect of atorvastatin on HDL-C over time (up to 48 months) in 1600 CHD patients. The time-dependent multivariate Cox predictive model,involving backward stepwise logistic regression,was used to evaluate the relation between coronary events and HDL-C changes. RESULTS: The mean increase in HDL-C levels during the study was 7%. All doses of atorvastatin significantly increased HDL-C levels. Increases were greater in men (7.8 vs 6.1%; p = 0.02), in combined hyperlipidaemia (7.9 vs 6.4% for hypercholesterolaemia; p = 0.04), and in the lower baseline HDL-C quartile (9.2 vs 5.3%, 1st vs 4th quartile; p = 0.001). After adjustment for 24 predictors of coronary events, multivariate analysis revealed a Hazards Ratio of 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.76-0.94; p = 0.002) for every 4 mg/dL(0.1 mmol/L) increase in HDL-C. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant beneficial effect on HDL-C levels across the dose range of atorvastatin. Clinical outcomes in the structured care arm of GREACE were determined in part by the extent of atorvastatin-induced HDL-C increase. This effect was independent from benefit induced by low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)reduction, suggesting that the CHD risk reduction associated with a rise in a low HDL-C at baseline remains significant under aggressive (-46%) LDL-C lowering conditions. However, the relationship between HDL-C and vascular risk may be weaker when LDL-C levels are aggressively lowered.

Effect of statins versus untreated dyslipidemia on serum uric acid levels in patients with coronary heart disease: a subgroup analysis of the GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effect of dyslipidemia on serum uric acid (SUA) levels, and less is known about the effect of statin treatment on them. The GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation study suggested that a mean atorvastatin dose of 24 mg/d achieves the National Cholesterol Educational Program treatment goals and significantly reduces morbidity and mortality in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in comparison to the usual care. Here, we report the time course of SUA levels in usual-care patients undertreated for their dyslipidemia (12% were administered statins) in comparison to structured-care patients treated with atorvastatin in the vast majority (98%). METHODS: Mean on-study SUA levels (up to 48 months) were compared with those at baseline by using analyses of variance to assess differences over time within and between treatment groups. Cox multivariate analysis was used to investigate whether changes in SUA levels during the study were clinically relevant. RESULTS: All patients had normal renal function at baseline; serum creatinine (SCr) levels less than 1.3 mg/dL (<115 micromol/L) and moderately elevated SUA levels (mean, 7.1 +/- 0.9 [SD] mg/dL [425 +/- 52 micromol/L]; upper normal limit, 7.0 mg/dL [415 micromol/L]). Usual-care patients (n = 800) showed an increase in SUA levels by 3.3% ( P < 0.0001). Structured-care patients (n = 800) had an 8.2% reduction in SUA levels ( P < 0.0001). In all patients not administered diuretics (n = 1,407), SUA level changes showed a positive correlation with changes in SCr levels ( r = 0.82; P < 0.0001) and an inverse correlation with estimated glomerular filtration rate ( r = -0.77; P < 0.0001). After adjustment for 19 predictors of all CHD-related events, Cox multivariate analysis involving backward stepwise logistic regression showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 0.96; P = 0.03) with every 0.5-mg (30-micromol/L) reduction in SUA level, an HR of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.62 to 0.89; P = 0.001) with every 1-mg (60-micromol/L) reduction, an HR of 1.14 (95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27; P = 0.02) with every 0.5-mg increase, and an HR of 1.29 (95% CI, 1.17 to 1.43; P = 0.001) with every 1-mg increase in SUA levels. CONCLUSION: Data suggest that SUA level is an independent predictor of CHD recurrent events. Atorvastatin treatment significantly reduces SUA levels in patients with CHD, thus offsetting an additional factor associated with CHD risk.

Early benefit from structured care with atorvastatin in patients with coronary heart disease and diabetes mellitus.

This is a prospective evaluation of the effect of structured care of dyslipidemia with atorvastatin (strict implementation of guidelines) versus usual care (physician's standard of care) on morbidity and mortality of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and diabetes mellitus (DM). From 1600 consecutive CHD patients randomized to either form of care in the GREek Atorvastatin and CHD Evaluation Study (GREACE), 313 had DM: 161 in the structured care arm and 152 in the usual care arm. All patients were followed up for a mean of 3 years. In the structured care group, patients were treated with atorvastatin to achieve the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment goal of <2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL). Primary endpoints were all-cause and coronary mortality, coronary morbidity, and stroke. In the structured care group, 156 patients (97%) were taking atorvastatin (10-80 mg/day; mean, 23.7 mg/day) throughout the study; the NCEP LDL-C treatment goal was reached by 150 patients (93%). Only 17% (n=26) of the usual care patients were on long-term hypolipidemic drug treatment and 4% (n=6) reached the NCEP LDL-C treatment goal. During the study, 46 of 152 (30.3%) CHD patients with DM on usual care experienced a major vascular event or died versus 20 of 161 (12.5%) patients on structured care; relative risk reduction (RRR) 58%, p<0.0001. RRR for all-cause mortality was 52%, p=0.049; coronary mortality 62%, p=0.042; coronary morbidity 59%, p<0.002; and stroke 68%, p=0.046. Event rate curves started deviating from the sixth treatment month and the RRR was almost 60% by the 12th month. RRRs remained at that level until the end of the study, when they became statistically significant. The cost/life-year gained with structured care was estimated at 6200 US dollars. In CHD patients with DM, structured care of dyslipidemia with atorvastatin to achieve the NCEP LDL-C treatment goal, reduces all-cause and coronary mortality, coronary morbidity, and stroke by more than one half within a 3-year period, in comparison to usual care. Clinical benefit is manifested as early as the sixth month of treatment.

Treatment with atorvastatin to the National Cholesterol Educational Program goal versus 'usual' care in secondary coronary heart disease prevention. The GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) study.

BACKGROUND: Atorvastatin is very effective in reducing plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. However, there is no long-term survival study that evaluated this statin. PATIENTS-METHODS: To assess the effect of atorvastatin on morbidity and mortality (total and coronary) of patients with established coronary heart disease (CHD), 1600 consecutive patients were randomised either to atorvastatin or to 'usual' medical care. The dose of atorvastatin was titrated from 10 to 80 mg/day, in order to reach the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) goal of LDL-C <100 mg/dl (2.6 mmol/l). All patients were followed up for a mean period of 3 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary endpoints of the study were defined as death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina, congestive heart failure, revascularisation (coronary morbidity) and stroke. Secondary endpoints were the safety and efficacy of the hypolipidaemic drugs as well as the cost-effectiveness of atorvastatin. RESULTS: The mean dosage of atorvastatin was 24 mg/day. This statin reduced total chlesterol by 36%, LDL-C by 46%, triglycerides by 31%, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) by 44%, while it increased HDL-C by 7%; all these changes were significant. The NCEP LDL-C and non-HDL-C treatment goals were reached by 95% (n = 759) and 97% (n = 776), respectively, of patients on atorvastatin. Only 14% of the 'usual' care patients received any hypolipidaemic drugs throughout the study and 3% of them reached the NCEP LDL-C treatment goal. The cost per quaility-adjusted life-year gained with atorvastatin was estimated at $US 8350. During this study 196 (24.5%) CHD patients on 'usual' care had a CHD recurrent event or died vs. 96 (12%) CHD patients on atorvastatin; risk ratio (RR) 0.49, confidence interval (CI) 0.27-0.73, p < 0.0001. In detail, atorvastatin reduced, in comparison to 'usual' care, total mortality (RR 0.57, CI 0.39-0.78, p = 0.0021), coronary mortality (RR 0.53, CI 0.29-0.74, p = 0.0017), coronary morbidity (RR 0.46, CI 0.25-0.71, p < 0.0001), and stroke (RR 0.53, CI 0.30-0.82, p = 0.034). All subgroups of patients (women, those with diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension, age 60 to 75 years, congestive heart failure, recent unstable angina or prior revascularisation) benefited from treatment with atorvastatin. Withdrawal of patients because of side-effects from the atorvastatin group was low (0.75%) and similar to that of the 'usual' care group (0.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment of CHD patients with atorvastatin to achieve NCEP lipid targets significantly reduces total and coronary mortality, coronary morbidity and stroke, in comparison to patients receiving 'usual' medical care. Treatment with atorvastatin is well tolerated and cost-effective.

Attaining United Kingdom-European Atherosclerosis Society low-density lipoprotein cholesterol guideline target values in the Greek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) Study.

The GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) Study compared two standards (structured vs. usual care) of lipid lowering treatment in 1600 patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Structured care aimed at achieving (with atorvastatin 10-80 mg) the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (2.6 mmol/l; 100 mg/dl) goal described in the NCEP ATP II and III guidelines for patients with CHD. Structured care was associated with a significant reduction in overall mortality and coronary events compared to usual care. In the present brief report we interpret the results of GREACE using the United Kingdom (UK) and European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) treatment goal for LDL-C in secondary CHD prevention (3.0 mmol/l; 115 mg/dl. The mean dose of atorvastatin decreased from 24 mg to 22 mg/day. More patients achieved the UK and EAS LDL-C target (95.6 vs. 95%) in the structured care arm of the trial; 90% of the patients achieved this target with 10 or 20 mg atorvastatin. These findings may have cost implications, especially if the LDL-C target for high-risk patients will fall below those described above.