Validation of a non-invasive method for the early detection of metabolic syndrome: a diagnostic accuracy test in a working population.

OBJECTIVES: A non-invasive method for the early detection of metabolic syndrome (NIM-MetS) using only waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) and blood pressure (BP) has recently been published, with fixed cut-off values for gender and age. The aim of this study was to validate this method in a large sample of Spanish workers. DESIGN: A diagnostic test accuracy to assess the validity of the method was performed. SETTING: Occupational health services. PARTICIPANTS: The studies were conducted in 2012-2016 on a sample of 60 799 workers from the Balearic Islands (Spain). INTERVENTIONS: The NCEP-ATP III criteria were used as the gold standard. NIM-MetS has been devised using classification trees (the χ2 automatic interaction detection method). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anthropometric and biochemical variables to diagnose MetS. Sensitivity, specificity, validity index and Youden Index were determined to analyse the accuracy of the diagnostic test (NIM-MetS). RESULTS: With regard to the validation of the method, sensitivity was 54.7%, specificity 94.9% and the Validity Index 91.2%. The cut-off value for WHtR was 0.54, ranging from 0.51 (lower age group) to 0.56 (higher age group). Variables more closely associated with MetS were WHtR (area under the curve (AUC)=0.85; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.86) and systolic BP (AUC=0.79; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.80)). The final cut-off values for the non-invasive method were WHtR ≥0.56 and BP ≥128/80 mm Hg, which includes four levels of MetS risk (very low, low, moderate and high). CONCLUSIONS: The analysed method has shown a high validity index (higher than 91%) for the early detection of MetS. It is a non-invasive method that is easy to apply and interpret in any healthcare setting. This method provides a scale of MetS risk which allows more accurate detection and more effective intervention.

Coste-efectividad de rosuvastatina frente a simvastatina, atorvastatina y pitavastatina en pacientes con riesgo cardiovascular alto y muy alto en España / Cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk in Spain

Introducción y objetivos: Estimar el coste-efectividad de rosuvastatina frente a simvastatina, atorvastatina y pitavastatina en España, de acuerdo con las guías europeas de tratamiento de las dislipidemias, en pacientes con alto y muy alto riesgo cardiovascular. Métodos: Modelo de Markov de coste-efectividad a largo plazo de rosuvastatina versus simvastatina, atorvastatina y pitavastatina, en pacientes de alto y muy alto riesgo cardiovascular definido por 5 factores (sexo, edad, hábito tabáquico, nivel de colesterol inicial, presión arterial sistólica) según el sistema SCORE. La ratio coste-efectividad incremental se expresa en euros por año de vida ajustado por calidad y se calcula desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud. Resultados: Los resultados indican que rosuvastatina se asocia a un beneficio mayor que las otras estatinas en todos los perfiles considerados. Rosuvastatina es más coste-efectiva con respecto a simvastatina en pacientes con riesgo SCORE ≥ 8% en mujeres y ≥ 6% en hombres, mientras que entre 5% y los valores indicados su coste-efectividad depende del nivel basal de c-LDL del paciente. Rosuvastatina resulta más coste-efectiva frente a atorvastatina a partir de un riesgo SCORE de 11% en mujeres y 10% en hombres. Rosuvastatina resulta dominante frente a pitavastatina, tanto en mujeres como en hombres con riesgo alto y muy alto en el sistema SCORE. Conclusiones: Rosuvastatina es una terapia coste-efectiva en el tratamiento de la hipercolesterolemia, frente a simvastatina, atorvastatina y pitavastatina, especialmente en determinados perfiles de pacientes con factores de riesgo cardiovascular alto y muy alto según el sistema SCORE en España

Introduction and objectives: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin in Spain, according to the European guidelines for the treatment of dyslipidemias in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk.Methods: A Markov long-term cost-effectiveness model of rosuvastatin versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk defined according to 5 factors (sex, age, smoking habit, baseline cholesterol level, and systolic blood pressure) using the SCORE system. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is expressed in euros per quality adjusted life years and is calculated according to the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Results: Rosuvastatin is associated with a greater health benefit than the other statins across the considered profiles. Rosuvastatin is cost-effective compared to simvastatin in patients with SCORE risk ≥8% in females and ≥6% in males, while between 5% and the indicated values its cost-effectiveness is conditional to the patient baseline c-LDL level. Rosuvastatin is more cost-effective versus atorvastatin in female profiles associated with a SCORE risk≥11% and male profiles with SCORE risk ≥10%. Rosuvastatin is superior versus pitavastatin in both female and male profiles with high and very high cardiovascular risk. Conclusions: Rosuvastatin is a cost-effective therapy in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin, especially in specific profiles of patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk factors, according to the SCORE system, in Spain

[Cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk in Spain]. / Coste-efectividad de rosuvastatina frente a simvastatina, atorvastatina y pitavastatina en pacientes con riesgo cardiovascular alto y muy alto en España.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin in Spain, according to the European guidelines for the treatment of dyslipidemias in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk. METHODS: A Markov long-term cost-effectiveness model of rosuvastatin versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk defined according to 5 factors (sex, age, smoking habit, baseline cholesterol level, and systolic blood pressure) using the SCORE system. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is expressed in euros per quality adjusted life years and is calculated according to the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. RESULTS: Rosuvastatin is associated with a greater health benefit than the other statins across the considered profiles. Rosuvastatin is cost-effective compared to simvastatin in patients with SCORE risk ≥8% in females and ≥6% in males, while between 5% and the indicated values its cost-effectiveness is conditional to the patient baseline c-LDL level. Rosuvastatin is more cost-effective versus atorvastatin in female profiles associated with a SCORE risk≥11% and male profiles with SCORE risk ≥10%. Rosuvastatin is superior versus pitavastatin in both female and male profiles with high and very high cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin is a cost-effective therapy in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin, especially in specific profiles of patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk factors, according to the SCORE system, in Spain.

Autosomal recessive hypercholesterolemia in Spanish kindred due to a large deletion in the ARH gene.

Autosomal recessive hypercholesterolemia (ARH) is a rare genetic defect that causes marked elevation of plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and premature atherosclerosis. It is due to mutations in the ARH gene that plays a critical role in the internalization of LDL receptor (LDLR) in liver cells. We describe a Spanish family where a 24-year-old proband and his 13-year-old sister showed the typical characteristics of ARH. The proband's LDLR activity in peripheral lymphocytes was 14% of normal and his in vivo LDL catabolism was reduced by 64% compared to normal. Notably, the sister showed normal lipid levels when her umbilical cord blood was tested. In this family, ARH was due to homozygosity for a large approximately 1.6kb deletion that eliminates exon 4 of ARH gene. Analysis of ARH mRNA demonstrated that the fusion of exon 3 to exon 5 during the splicing of the primary transcript changes the reading frame leading to stop codon 7 amino acids downstream in exon 5. No protein product was detected in affected individuals by immunoblot analysis. This novel mutation adds new support to the molecular heterogeneity of ARH in the Mediterranean basin.