Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: There is a wide treatment gap between evidence-based guidelines and their implementation in primary care.

Objective: To evaluate the extent to which physicians "literally" follow guidelines for secondary prevention of dyslipidemia and the extent to which they practice "substitute" therapeutic measures.

Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis of data collected in a prospective cluster randomized trial. The participants were 130 primary care physicians treating 7745 patients requiring secondary prevention of dyslipidemia. The outcome measure was physician "literal" adherence or "substitute" adherence. We used logistic regressions to evaluate the effect of various clinical situations on “literal” and “substitute” adherence.

Results: "Literal" adherence was modest for ordering a lipoprotein profile (35.1%) and for pharmacotherapy initiations (26.0%), but rather poor for drug up-titrations (16.1%) and for referrals for specialist consultation (3.8%). In contrast, many physicians opted for "substitute" adherence for up-titrations (75.9%) and referrals for consultation (78.7%). Physicians tended to follow the guidelines “literally” in simple clinical situations (such as the need for lipid screening) but to use "substitute" measures in more complex cases (when dose up-titration or metabolic consultation was required). Most substitute actions were less intense than the actions recommended by the guidelines.

Conclusions: Physicians often do not blindly follow guidelines, but rather evaluate their adequacy for a particular patient and adjust the treatment according to their assessment. We suggest that clinical management be evaluated in a broader sense than strict guideline adherence, which may underestimate physicians' efforts.
 

Background: Anti-lipoprotein lipase antibodies have been described in rare cases of patients with hypertriglyceridemia. However, no systematic study evaluating these antibodies in patients with this lipid abnormality has been undertaken.

Objectives: To analyze the correlation of anti-lipoprotein lipase (anti-LPL) antibodies with other laboratory findings in patients with hypertriglyceridemia but no autoimmune disease.

Methods: We evaluated 44 hypertriglyceridemic patients without autoimmune disease. Clinical and laboratory evaluations included analyses of co-morbidities, fasting lipid profile and anti-LPL antibodies.

Results: Mean patient age was 55 ± 10 years; 46% of the patients were female and 64% were Caucasian. The mean disease duration was 94.4 months and mean body mass index 28.7 ± 3.6 kg/m²; 34.0% were diabetic, 25.0% were obese, 72.7% had systemic arterial hypertension, 75% were sedentary, 15.9% were smokers, 56.8% had a family history of dyslipidemia, 45.5% had a family history of coronary insufficiency, 20.5% had acute myocardial infarction, 9.0% had undergone revascularization and 11.0% angioplasty, 79.5% were being treated with statins and 43.2% were taking fibrates. Median triglyceride levels were 254 mg/dl (range 100-3781 mg/dl), and total cholesterol level was 233 ± 111 mg/dl. High-density lipoprotein was 42.6 ± 15.4 mg/dl, low-density lipoprotein 110.7 ± 42.4 mg/dl and very low-density lipoprotein 48 ± 15 mg/dl. Anti-LPL antibodies were identified in 2 patients (4.5%), both of whom had a family history of dyslipidemia, coronary insufficiency and acute myocardial infarction; one had undergone myocardial revascularization and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, and both were using fibrates and had normal triglyceride levels.

Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate a correlation between the immune response and dyslipoproteinemia in hypertriglyceridemic patients, suggesting that autoimmune disease contributes to the dyslipidemia process.
 

Background: Dyslipidemia remains underdiagnosed and undertreated in patients with coronary artery disease. The Computer-based Clinical Decision Support System provides an opportunity to close these gaps.

Objectives: To study the impact of computerized intervention on secondary prevention of CAD[1].

Methods: The CDSS[2] was programmed to automatically detect patients with CAD and to evaluate the availability of an updated lipoprotein profile and treatment with lipid-lowering drugs. The program produced automatic computer-generated monitoring and treatment recommendations. Adjusted primary clinics were randomly assigned to intervention (n=56) or standard care arms (n=56). Reminders were mailed to the primary medical teams in the intervention arm every 4 months updating them with current lipid levels and recommendations for further treatment. Compliance and lipid levels were monitored. The study group comprised all patients with CAD who were alive at least 3 months after hospitalization.

Results: Follow-up was available for 7448 patients with CAD (median 19.8 months, range 6–36 months). Overall, 51.7% of patients were adequately screened, and 55.7% of patients were compliant with treatment recommended to lower lipid level. A significant decrease in low density lipoprotein levels was observed in both arms, but was more pronounced in the intervention arm: 121.9 ± 34.2 vs. 124.3 ± 34.6 mg/dl (P < 0.02). A significantly lower rate of cardiac rehospitalizations was documented in patients who were adequately treated with lipid-lowering drugs, 37% vs. 40.9% (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: This initial assessment of our data represent a real-world snapshot where physicians and CAD patients often do not adhere to clinical guidelines, presenting a major obstacle to implementing effective secondary prevention. Our automatic computerized reminders system substantially facilitates adherence to guidelines and supports wide-range implementation.

Objectives: To assess the prevalence of reversible and treatable cardiovascular risk factors among 26’477 healthy Israeli adults: 23’339 men and 3138 women aged 25-55 years.

Methods: We collected data during routine examinations performed as part of a screening program for Israel Defense Force personnel.