Outpatient Therapies for COVID-19: How Do We Choose?

BACKGROUND: Several outpatient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies have reduced hospitalization in randomized controlled trials. The choice of therapy may depend on drug efficacy, toxicity, pricing, availability, and available infrastructure. To facilitate comparative decision-making, we evaluated the efficacy of each treatment in clinical trials and estimated the cost per hospitalization prevented. METHODS: Wherever possible, we obtained relative risk for hospitalization from published randomized controlled trials. Otherwise, we extracted data from press releases, conference abstracts, government submissions, or preprints. If there was >1 study, the results were meta-analyzed. Using relative risk, we estimated the number needed to treat (NNT), assuming a baseline hospitalization risk of 5%, and compared the cost per hospitalization prevented with the estimate for an average Medicare COVID-19 hospitalization ($21 752). Drug pricing was estimated from GoodRx, from government purchases, or manufacturer estimates. Administrative and societal costs were not included. Results will be updated online as new studies emerge and/or final numbers become available. RESULTS: At a 5% risk of hospitalization, the estimated NNT was 80 for fluvoxamine, 91 for colchicine, 72 for inhaled corticosteroids, 24 for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 50 for molnupiravir, 28 for remdesivir, 25 for sotrovimab, 29 for casirivimab/imdevimab, and 29 for bamlanivimab/etesevimab. For drug cost per hospitalization prevented, colchicine, fluvoxamine, inhaled corticosteroids, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were below the Medicare estimated hospitalization cost. CONCLUSIONS: Many countries are fortunate to have access to several effective outpatient therapies to prevent COVID-19 hospitalization. Given differences in efficacy, toxicity, cost, and administration complexity, this assessment serves as one means to frame treatment selection.

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.

Gambling With Cardiovascular Disease Risk Models: How to Choose and How to Use.

Cardiovascular risk assessment has been shown to improve physicians' and patients' understanding of an individual's future risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). It has also been shown to improve the management of cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension and dyslipidemia. Given the challenges of engaging patients to adhere to healthy lifestyle habits or take medications for hypertension and dyslipidemia, the primary role of CVD risk assessment should be to open a discussion about the patient's risk for CVD and associated conditions like adult-onset diabetes. Calculating a patient's long-term risk and estimating the benefits of lifestyle changes or risk factor management may then be used to support long-term patient adherence. However, risk assessment is only a first step and must be followed by evidence-based health-promotion strategies and risk factor medications that have been proven to work.

Cardiovascular Risk Assessment and Follow-Up of Women After Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy:A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) comprise an independent, sex-specific risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in women. This study examined the utility of CVD risk models proposed in the 2016 Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) lipid guidelines to identify women requiring further screening or lipid treatment following HDP. METHODS: Using data collected from the postpartum Maternal Health Clinic (MHC) at Kingston General Hospital in Kingston, Ontario and the Preeclampsia New Emerging Team (PE-NET) cohort study, the study investigators used the models recommended by the CCS guidelines and the cardiometabolic model of life expectancy in each cohort to estimate CVD risk in women after HDP. (Canadian Task Force Classification II-2). RESULTS: Using the 10-Year Modified Framingham Risk Score, all women were classified by the 2016 CCS Guidelines as low risk, requiring no follow-up. The 30-Year and Lifetime Risk Scores resulted in significant reclassification of women at risk in the PE-NET control and HDP groups (P < 0.001 and P < 0.0001, respectively); 49.2% of women with HDP were classified as high risk, requiring follow-up, compared with 14.3% of control subjects. Using the cardiometabolic model, median life expectancy was significantly lower and expected onset of CVD was earlier in the HDP group compared with the control group (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The 2016 CCS lipid guidelines' risk classification recommendations significantly underestimated lifelong CVD risk in the HDP group compared with the control group. Women with HDP also had a significant decrease in cardiometabolic life expectancy and an earlier predicted age at onset of CVD. Early primary prevention in this at-risk population may improve CVD outcomes and reduce the future burden on the health care system.

The Sustainability of a Workplace Wellness Program That Incorporates Gamification Principles: Participant Engagement and Health Benefits After 2 Years.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the results of a workplace wellness program that incorporates gamification principles. DESIGN: In this prospective cohort study, the participation rate and observed health outcomes were evaluated after approximately 2 years. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All permanent employees (n = 775) of a national company located in Canada were eligible to participate. INTERVENTION: The wellness program included web-based challenges (team or individual) incorporating gamification strategies to improve exercise, nutrition, weight reduction, and mental health management behaviors. MEASURES AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were employee participation rates. The secondary pre-specified outcomes were the sustained benefits of the program on physical and mental health measures. RESULTS: Participation rates in the health screenings were 78% (baseline), 54% (year 1), and 56% (year 2). Participation in the 4 team web-based challenges ranged from 33% to 68% with 76% to 86% of participants tracking their activity on at least half of the days. After 2 years, there were significant clinical improvements in systolic blood pressure (-1.3mm Hg), total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein (HDL) ratio (-0.14), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; -0.1%), weekly physical activity (+264 Metabolic Equivalents [METs]), perceived stress score (-17%), insomnia severity index (-16%), general fatigue (-10%), and reductions in the cardiovascular age gap (-0.3 years). Greater benefits occurred among employees at higher risk. CONCLUSIONS: Workplace wellness programs that evolve over time and focus primarily on fun and competitive challenges may support long-term participation, behavior change, and sustained improvements in clinical outcomes.

Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of evolocumab in the FOURIER study: a Canadian analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evolocumab, a proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, has been shown to reduce low-density lipoprotein levels by up to 60%. Despite the absence of a reduction in overall or cardiovascular mortality in the Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk (FOURIER) trial, some believe that, with longer treatment, such a benefit might eventually be realized. Our aim was to estimate the potential mortality benefit over a patient's lifetime and the cost per year of life saved (YOLS) for an average Canadian with established coronary artery disease. We also sought to estimate the price threshold at which evolocumab might be considered cost-effective for secondary prevention in Canada. METHODS: We calibrated the Cardio-metabolic Model, a well-validated tool for predicting cardiovascular events and life expectancy, to the reduction in nonfatal events seen in the FOURIER trial. Assuming that long-term treatment will eventually result in mortality benefits, we estimated YOLSs and cost per YOLS with evolocumab treatment plus a statin compared to a statin alone. We then estimated the annual drug costs that would provide a 50% chance of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay values of $50 000 and $100 000. RESULTS: In secondary prevention in patients similar to those in the FOURIER study, evolocumab treatment would save an average of 0.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.41) life-years at a cost of $101 899 (95% CI $97 325-$106 473), yielding a cost per YOLS of $299 482. We estimate that to have a 50% probability of achieving a cost per YOLS below $50 000 and $100 000 would require annual drug costs below $1200 and $2300, respectively. INTERPRETATION: At current pricing, the use of evolocumab for secondary prevention is unlikely to be cost-effective in Canada.

The Measurable Benefits of a Workplace Wellness Program in Canada: Results After One Year.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of an employee wellness program in Canada. METHODS: A comprehensive program including web-based lifestyle challenges was evaluated with annual health screenings. RESULTS: Among 730 eligible employees, 688 (94%) registered for the program, 571 (78%) completed a health screening at baseline, and 314 (43%) at 1 year. Most (66%) employees tracked their activity for more than 6 weeks. At 1-year follow-up, there were significant clinical improvements in systolic blood pressure -3.4 mm Hg, and reductions in poor sleep quality (33% to 28%), high emotional stress (21% to 15%), and fatigue (11% to 6%). A positive dose-response was noted where the greatest improvements were observed among those who participated the most. CONCLUSION: The program had high employee engagement. After 1 year, the benefits included clinically important improvements in physical and mental health.

Years of life lost and healthy life-years lost from diabetes and cardiovascular disease in overweight and obese people: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increased risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes associated with excess bodyweight, development of a clinically meaningful metric for health professionals remains a challenge. We estimated the years of life lost and the life-years lost from diabetes and cardiovascular disease associated with excess bodyweight. METHODS: We developed a disease-simulation model to estimate the annual risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and mortality for people with BMI of 25-<30 kg/m(2) (overweight), 30-<35 kg/m(2) (obese), or 35 kg/m(2) and higher (very obese), compared with an ideal BMI of 18·5-<25 kg/m(2). We used data from 3992 non-Hispanic white participants in the National Nutrition and Examination Survey (2003-10) for whom complete risk factor data and fasting glucose concentrations were available. After validation of the model projections, we estimated the years of life lost and healthy life-years lost associated with each bodyweight category. FINDINGS: Excess bodyweight was positively associated with risk factors for cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. The effect of excess weight on years of life lost was greatest for young individuals and decreased with increasing age. The years of life lost for obese men ranged from 0·8 years (95% CI 0·2-1·4) in those aged 60-79 years to 5·9 years (4·4-7·4) in those aged 20-39 years, and years lost for very obese men ranged from 0·9 (0-1·8) years in those aged 60-79 years to 8·4 (7·0-9·8) years in those aged 20-39 years, but losses were smaller and sometimes negligible for men who were only overweight. Similar results were noted for women (eg, 6·1 years [4·6-7·6] lost for very obese women aged 20-39 years; 0·9 years [0·1-1·7] lost for very obese women aged 60-79 years). Healthy life-years lost were two to four times higher than total years of life lost for all age groups and bodyweight categories. INTERPRETATION: Our estimations for both healthy life-years and total years of life lost show the effect of excess bodyweight on cardiovascular disease and diabetes, and might provide a useful health measure for discussions between health professionals and their patients. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

The association between sleep disturbance, depressive symptoms, and health-related quality of life among cardiac rehabilitation participants.

PURPOSE: Recent guidelines from the Canadian Association of Cardiac Rehabilitation highlight the importance of addressing sleep disturbance among participants of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs. The primary objective of this study was to examine the relationship between depressive symptoms, health-related quality of life, and sleep disturbance in CR participants. The secondary objective was to estimate the prevalence of sleep disturbance among CR participants with and without depressive symptoms and explore demographic, medical, and psychological predictors of poor sleep quality. METHODS: Cardiac rehabilitation participants (N = 259) were included in this study. Participants completed a standardized questionnaire package including demographic, health-related, and psychosocial measures. Physiologic and anthropometric measurements were taken at baseline. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables, and data were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Poor sleep quality was reported by 52% of participants in the sample, and 47% of participants in the sample reported experiencing at least mild depressive symptoms. Poor sleep occurred more often in individuals with depressive symptoms, and after adjustment for medical factors and health-related quality of life, participants with symptoms of depression were still more likely to experience sleep disturbance than those without depressive symptoms (OR = 2.80; 95% CI, 1.37-5.77). An important gender difference emerged in the relationship between symptoms of depression and sleep disturbance. CONCLUSION: Among participants of a CR program, disturbed sleep was strongly associated with depressive symptoms and decreased health-related quality of life. Results demonstrate the importance of sleep evaluation in CR programs.

Determinants and benefits of physical activity maintenance in hospital employees.

This study investigated whether the positive behavioral and anthropometric outcomes of a pedometer-based physical activity 8-week challenge were maintained 6 months after the end of the program. It further investigated the motivational profile of those who maintained their physical activity levels in the months following the end of the program and of those who did not. Hospital employees from a university-affiliated multisite health care center in Canada participated using a questionnaire. Of the 235 participants who completed the 8-week challenge, 157 questionnaires were returned 6 months later. Paired-samples t tests were conducted between the baseline and follow-up scores as well as between the postprogram and follow-up scores to detect significant differences between the measurement points. This study shows that the pedometer-based physical activity helped hospital employees maintain a high level of physical activity as well as maintain a healthy body mass index after 6 months. The results demonstrated that during maintenance the high physical activity group obtained higher scores for identified regulation and intrinsic regulation compared with the other groups. The results of the study revealed that identified and intrinsic regulations are important contributors to maintaining physical activity among hospital employees.

The 2011 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations for the management of hypertension: blood pressure measurement, diagnosis, assessment of risk, and therapy.

We updated the evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, assessment, prevention, and treatment of hypertension in adults for 2011. The major guideline changes this year are: (1) a recommendation was made for using comparative risk analogies when communicating a patient's cardiovascular risk; (2) diagnostic testing issues for renal artery stenosis were discussed; (3) recommendations were added for the management of hypertension during the acute phase of stroke; (4) people with hypertension and diabetes are now considered high risk for cardiovascular events if they have elevated urinary albumin excretion, overt kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, or the presence of other cardiovascular risk factors; (5) the combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (CCB) is preferred over the combination of an ACE inhibitor and a thiazide diuretic in persons with diabetes and hypertension; and (6) a recommendation was made to coordinate with pharmacists to improve antihypertensive medication adherence. We also discussed the recent analyses that examined the association between angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and cancer.

The challenges and benefits of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice.

Current expert guidelines for the treatment of hypertension or dyslipidemia recommend the use of cardiovascular risk assessment to identify high-risk individuals most likely to benefit from risk factor management. The potential uses of risk assessment include reassuring low-risk individuals, motivating high-risk individuals to modify their lifestyles or adhere to medical therapy, and track an individual's progress as risk factors come under better control. Despite the potential usefulness of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice, the vast majority of patients have never had their cardiovascular risk assessed. This review describes the strengths and weaknesses of the currently available risk engines and suggests an approach, based on the currently available evidence, that can be used to maximize the clinical impact of risk assessment in daily clinical practice.

The preventing recurrent vascular events and neurological worsening through intensive organized case-management (PREVENTION) trial protocol [clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00931788].

BACKGROUND: Survivors of transient ischemic attack (TIA) or stroke are at high risk for recurrent vascular events and aggressive treatment of vascular risk factors can reduce this risk. However, vascular risk factors, especially hypertension and high cholesterol, are not managed optimally even in those patients seen in specialized clinics. This gap between the evidence for secondary prevention of stroke and the clinical reality leads to suboptimal patient outcomes. In this study, we will be testing a pharmacist case manager for delivery of stroke prevention services. We hypothesize this new structure will improve processes of care which in turn should lead to improved outcomes. METHODS: We will conduct a prospective, randomized, controlled open-label with blinded ascertainment of outcomes (PROBE) trial. Treatment allocation will be concealed from the study personnel, and all outcomes will be collected in an independent and blinded manner by observers who have not been involved in the patient's clinical care or trial participation and who are masked to baseline measurements. Patients will be randomized to control or a pharmacist case manager treating vascular risk factors to guideline-recommended target levels. Eligible patients will include all adult patients seen at stroke prevention clinics in Edmonton, Alberta after an ischemic stroke or TIA who have uncontrolled hypertension (defined as systolic blood pressure (BP) > 140 mm Hg) or dyslipidemia (fasting LDL-cholesterol > 2.00 mmol/L) and who are not cognitively impaired or institutionalized. The primary outcome will be the proportion of subjects who attain 'optimal BP and lipid control'(defined as systolic BP < 140 mm Hg and fasting LDL cholesterol < 2.0 mmol/L) at six months compared to baseline; 12-month data will also be collected for analyses of sustainability of any effects. A variety of secondary outcomes related to vascular risk and health-related quality of life will also be collected. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-quarter of those who survive a TIA or minor stroke suffer another vascular event within a year. If our intervention improves the provision of secondary prevention therapies in these patients, the clinical (and financial) implications will be enormous.

Evaluating the incremental benefits of raising high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels during lipid therapy after adjustment for the reductions in other blood lipid levels.

BACKGROUND: The role of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) as a therapeutic target to prevent cardiovascular (CV) events remains unclear. We examined data from the Framingham Offspring Study from 1975 through 2003 to determine whether increases in HDL-C levels after lipid therapy was started were independently associated with a reduction in CV events. METHODS: Using Cox proportional-hazards regression, we evaluated the risk of a CV event associated with changes in blood lipid levels among individuals who started lipid therapy. The independent effect of HDL-C levels on future CV risk (average follow-up, 8 years) was estimated after adjustment for changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, plasma triglycerides, and pretreatment blood lipid levels. Potential confounders (eg, smoking status, weight, and the use of beta-blockers) were then added to the model. Interactions between blood lipid levels were also explored. RESULTS: The change in HDL-C level was a strong independent risk factor for CV events (hazard ratio, 0.79 per 5-mg/dL increase; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.93) after adjustment for the other lipid changes associated with treatment. This relationship remained stable across a wide range of patient subgroups and did not appear to be associated with a specific drug class. An important interaction was observed: the lower the pretreatment low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, the greater the impact of raising the HDL-C. CONCLUSIONS: Raising HDL-C levels with commonly used lipid medications appears to be an important determinant of the benefits associated with lipid therapy. These results support the further evaluation of therapies to raise HDL-C levels to prevent CV events.

Discussing coronary risk with patients to improve blood pressure treatment: secondary results from the CHECK-UP study.

OBJECTIVES: Hypertension is common among patients with dyslipidemia but is often poorly treated. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate how a decision aid, used by primary care physicians to improve lipid therapy, impacted on the treatment of hypertension. STUDY DESIGN: Data were analyzed from patients enrolled in a randomized trial focusing primarily on the treatment of dyslipidemia. Patients received usual care or a coronary risk profile every three months to monitor the risk reduction following lifestyle changes and/or pharmacotherapy to treat dyslipidemia. Hypertension management was assessed based on a post hoc analysis of individuals whose blood pressure exceeded current national hypertension guidelines. RESULTS: There were 2,631 subjects who completed the study. Among 1,352 patients without diagnosed hypertension, 30% were above target on at least three consecutive visits. Among 1,279 individuals with known hypertension, 69% were above target on at least two consecutive visits. Overall, patients receiving risk profiles were more likely to receive appropriate antihypertensive therapy (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.11-1.78) compared to those receiving usual care. After adjustment for inter-physician variability and potential confounders, the use of the risk profile was associated with an increased likelihood of starting therapy (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.06-3.00) or modifying therapy (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.03-1.91). CONCLUSIONS: In this clinical trial of dyslipidemia management, inadequately controlled hypertension was common, occurring in nearly 50% of individuals. Ongoing coronary risk assessment was associated with more appropriate blood pressure management. Cardiovascular risk assessment decision aids should be further evaluated in a randomized trial of hypertension therapy.

Determining the cost-effectiveness of preventing cardiovascular disease: are estimates calculated over the duration of a clinical trial adequate?

BACKGROUND: Economic analyses of randomized clinical trials often focus only on the results that are observed during the study. However, for many preventive interventions, associated costs and benefits will accrue over a patient's remaining lifetime. To determine the importance of the chosen time horizon, the cost-effectiveness (C/E) of ramipril therapy was calculated and compared in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE), the Microalbuminuria, Cardiovascular, and Renal Outcomes in HOPE (MICRO-HOPE) and the Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) study versus the entire life expectancy (L/E) of potential patients. METHODS: The Cardiovascular Disease Life Expectancy model, a validated Markov model, was calibrated to accurately forecast the results of each trial. These results were then extrapolated over the remaining L/E of hypothetical patients 55 to 75 years of age. The predicted change in L/E and associated direct health care costs for Canadians were calculated and discounted 3% annually. RESULTS: In HOPE, the forecasted increased L/E averaged 0.06 years during the five-year study versus 1.3 years over the remaining years of L/E. The associated C/E of ramipril was $15,000 per year of life saved (YOLS) over the study duration and $8,500/YOLS over the remaining lifetime. For hypothetical patients, the C/E of ramipril over 4.5 years ranged from $6,700/YOLS to more than $58,300/YOLS and was lowest among elderly men. When the remaining L/E was considered, the C/E of ramipril was similar for men and women of all ages, ranging from $8,100/YOLS to $10,200/YOLS. The analyses of MICRO-HOPE and AIRE provided similar results. CONCLUSION: The estimated efficacy and associated C/E of ramipril in HOPE, MICRO-HOPE and the AIRE study is extremely sensitive to the selected time horizon. Economic analyses beyond the duration of randomized clinical trials are required to fully evaluate the potential costs and benefits of long-term preventive therapies.

Estimating the cost effectiveness of ramipril used for specific clinical indications: comparing the outcomes in four clinical trials with a common economic model.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Economic analyses of drug therapies are highly dependent on the clinical indications for treatment. The cost effectiveness of ramipril has been evaluated in numerous studies, usually based on the results of one specific clinical trial. We estimated the cost effectiveness of this drug across a range of currently accepted therapeutic indications, using a single health economic model and adjusted for quality of life, to compare the different outcomes observed in four clinical trials. METHODS: The cardiovascular life expectancy model, a validated Markov model, was calibrated to accurately forecast the results of four trials including AIRE, HOPE, Micro-HOPE, and REIN. We then extrapolated these results over the remaining life expectancy of the patients enrolled in each study and adjusted for the quality of life associated with the observed outcomes. The cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was then calculated from the perspective of the Canadian healthcare system incorporating the estimated direct healthcare costs associated with treatments and outcomes. RESULTS: After discounting all costs and outcomes 3% annually, the benefits associated with ramipril ranged from 0.74 QALYs in the AIRE study to 1.22 QALYs in Micro-HOPE. Treatment was estimated to be cost-saving for some patient groups, such as those in REIN. The highest cost-effectiveness ratio was observed among individuals enrolled in HOPE ($Can20 000 per QALY in 2002). CONCLUSION: Treatment with ramipril appears to be economically attractive across a wide range of patient groups, including those with increased coronary risk and/or diabetes mellitus (HOPE and Micro-HOPE), those with congestive heart failure (AIRE), and those with non-diabetic nephropathy (REIN).

Patient knowledge of coronary risk profile improves the effectiveness of dyslipidemia therapy: the CHECK-UP study: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing evidence that treating dyslipidemia reduces cardiovascular events, many patients do not achieve recommended lipid targets. METHODS: To determine whether showing physicians and patients the patient's calculated coronary risk can improve the effectiveness of treating dyslipidemia in a primary care setting, patients were randomized to receive usual care or ongoing feedback regarding their calculated coronary risk and the change in this risk after lifestyle changes, pharmacotherapy, or both to treat dyslipidemia. Outcomes, based on intention-to-treat analysis, included changes in blood lipid levels, coronary risk, and the frequency of reaching lipid targets. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty primary care physicians enrolled 3,053 patients. After 12 months of follow-up, 2,687 patients (88.0%) remained in the study. After adjustment for baseline lipid values, significantly greater mean reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and the total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio were observed in patients receiving risk profiles (51.2 mg/dL [to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0259] and 1.5, respectively) vs usual care (48.0 mg/dL and 1.3, respectively), but the differences were small (-3.3 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.4 to -1.1 mg/dL; and -0.1; 95% CI, -0.2 to -0.1, respectively). Patients in the risk profile group were also more likely to reach lipid targets (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.48). A significant dose-response effect was also noted when the impact of the risk profile was stronger in those with worse profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Discussing coronary risk with the patient is associated with a small but measurable improvement in the efficacy of lipid therapy. The value of incorporating risk assessment in preventive care should be further evaluated.

Preventing cardiovascular disease among Canadians: what are the potential benefits of treating hypertension or dyslipidemia?

BACKGROUND: Treatments for hypertension and dyslipidemia to prevent the development of cardiovascular disease compete for the same finite number of health care dollars. Therefore, the potential benefits of treating Canadians without cardiovascular disease or diabetes who would currently be targeted by the national treatment guidelines were estimated and compared. STUDY DESIGN: Canadian Heart Health Surveys data were used to estimate the number of Canadians requiring intervention. The Cardiovascular Life Expectancy Model, a previously validated Markov model, was used to calculate the increased life expectancy and decreased morbidity associated with treating risk factors to target. RESULTS: Among 8.44 million adults 40 to 74 years of age without cardiovascular disease or diabetes, it was estimated that approximately 2.33 million would require treatment for dyslipidemia and 2.34 million for hypertension. The estimated Framingham 10-year coronary risk averaged 12.4% versus 9.6%, respectively. Treating dyslipidemia was associated with an average increased life expectancy of 1.67 years and 1.81 years of life free of cardiovascular disease. Treating hypertension was expected to increase life expectancy by 0.94 years and years of life free of cardiovascular disease by 1.29 years. The population benefits associated with treating dyslipidemia or hypertension would be 2.5 million and 1.4 million person years of life saved, respectively. Overall, the person years of treatment required to save one year of life was estimated to average 20 years for dyslipidemia therapy and 38 years for hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: The potential benefits associated with treating hypertension or dyslipidemia to prevent cardiovascular disease are substantial. However, compared with hypertension guidelines, dyslipidemia guidelines target higher-risk patients. Accordingly, given the relative efficacy of each treatment, the forecasted benefits associated with treating dyslipidemia are substantially greater than those associated with hypertension therapy.